Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, over on Reddit there have been multiple posts from Baldoni supporters saying that with the dismissal order coming out, some of them are feeling defeated and that they kind of need to take a break from the case for a while, and are dropping posts on it from their feed. This is consistent with other comments I’ve seen about views from content providers who talk about the case having gone down quite a bit in the last few days/last week. Maybe they will pick up again with new Taylor Swift fodder, but I wouldn’t mind if some of the grifters had to grift elsewhere.

Pp I haven’t seen that. Link?

I think there was another post like this on the IEWlawsuits sub (which btw has mostly returned back to the way it was before now though new mods say they hope to “tolerate” a little more Lively support lol) but I can’t find it, maybe deleted? But here is one from the other sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1lbj43g/not_giving_up_on_justin_but_anyone_else_feels/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, over on Reddit there have been multiple posts from Baldoni supporters saying that with the dismissal order coming out, some of them are feeling defeated and that they kind of need to take a break from the case for a while, and are dropping posts on it from their feed. This is consistent with other comments I’ve seen about views from content providers who talk about the case having gone down quite a bit in the last few days/last week. Maybe they will pick up again with new Taylor Swift fodder, but I wouldn’t mind if some of the grifters had to grift elsewhere.

Pp I haven’t seen that. Link?

I think there was another post like this on the IEWlawsuits sub (which btw has mostly returned back to the way it was before now though new mods say they hope to “tolerate” a little more Lively support lol) but I can’t find it, maybe deleted? But here is one from the other sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1lbj43g/not_giving_up_on_justin_but_anyone_else_feels/

Aha I see. Seems like people really love Justin. Interesting

[Anonymous]

Freedman has been saying for months that he wants to take Lively's deposition as early as possible and he doesn't care whether all the documents are in yet or not.

Liman has also been clear that depositions will only be taken once.

To me this just seems like foolishness all over again on Freedman's part, where he thinks he can intimidate Lively into taking a bad deposition, before he knows all the potentially bad info he might have to cross her on. I believe the dep is supposed to happen this month, which leaves him two weeks and a day to get what he needs. Not sure the Swift texts issue will be resolved by then, and since doc production doesn't substantially close until July 1 and close for real sometime in August, there will obviously be a large number of docs that won't even have been produced yet, let alone reviewed by people who can identify whether or not they should be used in Lively's dep.

I think this is more sh!tshow at the clown factory stuff from Freedman, where he is acting primarily for PR instead of to preserve all the best legal avenues in his case. I'm sure Lively will be filing motions for summary judgement on her own case, and he is going to need to show material issues of fact still in dispute at that stage. But he is behaving recklessly again here by doing an important dep before he has all the facts in. Just like he behaved recklessly in not filing any MTDs. Just like he behaved recklessly in not amending his shambolic complaint. Just like he behaved recklessly in filing a defamation complaint against Lively in California where as a result, Baldoni may now be liable for fees, punitives, and treble damages. Just like he is currently behaving recklessly in missing agreed upon deadlines for turning over documents and otherwise waiting until the last minute to comply with substantial completion in two weeks.

I think it's a risk to take Lively's dep so early before he's reviewed the docs he's asked for, mostly for the perceived benefit of intimidating her and getting her story locked down. I would wait. I guess he may think he is going to get something big out of her deposition or is looking to prove himself again, but this isn't about him. I would wait, but wonder whether I'm missing another reason why he would want to go so early before the docs are in, when he only gets one bite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Could be that they are arguing that their own claims involve issues for the trier of fact that can't be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, and arguing that other claims could be dismissed at this stage could get in the way of that. And also as PP says, the Lively complaint is strong enough to survive such a motion.

I also found it interesting that Freedman is basically immediately conceding the group pleading point and noting that they will amend their complaint immediately (basically ignoring/evading NYTs argument that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone). In other words, had Freedman not so amended, the complaint likely would have been dismissed on these grounds (likely without prejudice).

[/b]This is how one builds credibility with the Court. Now the judge doesn’t have to waste time on that argument.

lol no. You don’t build credibility by filing a crap complaint then amending it.

[b]The judge would have allowed them to replead anyway. This just moves up the timeline and saves the judge time. Now he just has to consider the actual dispositive arguments made by The NY Times.

probably but my point was it’s not “building credibility” to file a crap complaint then amend it when you see the MTD and you realize you are out of your depth legally

Worse, they already amended it once, didn't address the obvious defect, and now will want leave to amend it again. And at the same time, they are asking the court to deny the NYT's request to stay discovery until after the MTD has been resolved. So they are protracting the MTD deliberations due to their own sloppy pleading but also arguing they can't possibly be expected to wait until after the MTD proceedings are complete to start discovery against the NYT. It's so messy.

[b]It’s not messy at all. Discovery is already ongoing. You may be aware of that given that Blake’s subpoenas were just quashed for failure to meet the relevancy requirements. Had her lawyers just fixed them instead of ignoring their “obvious defects” once such defects were pointed out, they wouldn’t have been quashed. Sometimes a little humility goes a long way.

It’s not messy at all! Freedman is a legal mastermind! He probably intentionally made the group pleading mistake so that the judge would not be intimidated by his superior legal skillz!

What I said was it wasn’t messy for discovery to be going on while he amended the Complaint. But go off .. . This is likely the closest Blake will come to a development worth celebrating, even if it is completely meaningless.

Reposting another walk down memory lane from March, back when the MTDs were being filed, the NYT had moved for a stay, and everyone was questioning the group pleading problems with Baldoni's complaint. Freedman said he would amend it, and Baldoni supporters said "that's how you build credibility with the court" and complimented Freedman's "humility" lol! Of course as we know now, Freedman never did bother amending the complaint, so I guess that "building credibility" effort went nowhere. Then, above, another Baldoni supporter predicted that this admission from Freedman on the group pleading problems would "likely [be] the closest Blake will come to a development worth celebrating." Not sure that turned out the way you guys thought it would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I think it will be totally fine. But I understand why the Blake supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I’m just so confused though. Were you wrong then when you all said 30 pages ago that the NYT’s Motion to Dismiss was bananas and clearly would not be granted because nothing in it (including the group pleading allegations) had legs? Or is your boy Freedman wrong and overreacting by acknowledging the truth of the group pleading allegations and saying he will file yet another amended complaint to correct them?

Go back and read. I said that the group pleading argument didn’t really matter because he would just be given the opportunity to replead. Which is what is going to happen.

Readers, it was not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

I find this analysis on how Nick Shapiro PR works really interesting…

Flooding and fatigue Flooding subs with low-value, off-topic, or confusing posts to dull engagement. "Flood the zone with shit" in Steve Bannon's words - a tactic with roots in Putin's propaganda.

Narrative seeding Throwaway accounts posing as "just asking questions" plant doubts or push provocative implications. Even if disproven later, the initial doubt often lingers; that said, in these subs, the tactic seems to be backfiring - users are pushing back with facts and clarity.

Disarming with agreement Watch for posters who frequently say "I agree" or mirror your language before slipping in subtle counterpoints or reframing key issues. This is a known tactic from negotiation strategy (eg Chris Voss) used to lower resistance and make opposing viewpoints seem more
palatable or trustworthy.

Sockpuppeting/fake accounts Multiple accounts simulating organic support for Blake, or infiltrating with "Justin fans" who behave irrationally or toxically, to make the movement look cult-like or unserious.

Divide and discredit Seeding debates (eg Amber Heard comparisons?) to pit us against each other. The aim is to shift focus away
from what matters and create mistrust.

Reframing the story (gaslighting) Seen especially in wider pop culture subs: "They're both toxic", "We'll never know what really happened" and "We shouldn't take sides without facts". These narratives seem neutral but quietly erode support and
clarity.

[Anonymous]

^^ oh and this too. I found this list interesting, and some of it very familiar

Aims: • Discredit and derail balanced, authentic/neutral and pro-Justin subreddits before they go viral or start influencing journalists, influencers, or broader public
conversation.

• Get subs taken down if possible or at least tank engagement, make them seem unreliable, and manipulate Reddit's algorithm through mass-reporting, "drama" and flooding.

• Destabilize from inside: break trust between users and mods by sparking infighting or paranoia, giving the impression of "division" or that the subs are "falling apart". Discredit strong voices or wear them down emotionally.

• Keep us constantly second-guessing what we're seeing.

[Anonymous]

‘Flooding and fatigue Flooding subs with low-value, off-topic, or confusing posts to dull engagement. "Flood the zone with shit" in Steve Bannon's words - a tactic with roots in Putin's propaganda.’

I’m PP
I think we are seeing a lot of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

There is life and there is law. Sometimes the same but often not. Baldoni never had real legal claims. Lively may have done all of the things listed but there is nothing not legal. It is ok to be a jerk. It is ok to be tough and beat people up to your terms. Lively did nothing wrong from a legal perspective. NYT did nothing wrong and there was zero percent chance they would ever have been left in. Now Baldoni did a lot wrong from a legal perspective. Good chance he will lose this case. But it may never come to that. Lively may just dismiss at some point and end the case.

[Anonymous]

Definitely flood the zone with sh*t approach

[Anonymous]

^ as per Blake’s PR CIA hire Nick Shapiro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Definitely flood the zone with sh*t approach

I thought that's what all those instagram and TikTok's complaining about Lively's 20 year old foibles were? PerezHilton is on Reddit now, helping his lawyer Freedman flood the zone. I'm not sure that Lively isn't trying to do this now (now that the ostensible time period that the complaint covers is over since Freedman doesn't want to be responsible for producing any docs after January 2025), but I'm pretty sure Freedman has been doing this all along. I just assumed that was at least part of the reason why posts mentioning Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman instantly get downvoted on Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

No one ever argued that The NY Times had no chance on its motion to dismiss. Didn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely flood the zone with sh*t approach

I thought that's what all those instagram and TikTok's complaining about Lively's 20 year old foibles were? PerezHilton is on Reddit now, helping his lawyer Freedman flood the zone. I'm not sure that Lively isn't trying to do this now (now that the ostensible time period that the complaint covers is over since Freedman doesn't want to be responsible for producing any docs after January 2025), but I'm pretty sure Freedman has been doing this all along. I just assumed that was at least part of the reason why posts mentioning Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman instantly get downvoted on Reddit.

You’ve shared this multiple times, such a wacko conspiracy theory. But what else to expect from someone who spends 24/7 on this thread.