Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

So glad to see such riveting substantive commentary here.

Riveting kibitzing like... regurgitating months-old dcum posts and distilling comments and threads from reddit, lipstickalley, etc. like a crazy person. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

DP. More flooding as per Nick Shapiro style…

To Pp focused on the NYT, what do you think of Lively using Nick Shapiro for her PR team? Any thoughts on that?

I was the 20% NYT person if I recall, and I think almost the only poster who thought the MTD could survive (but be limited). I still think liman’s decision wasn’t quite right and there were aspects of the NYTs coverage that went beyond fair report, and Baldoni should have been permitted discovery to find out more… although liman did give freedman the chance to amend and he didn’t. Not sure if that was a huge mistake or not, and I’m not sure how focused wayfarer et al were on the lawsuit to begin with. Most people thought it was for PR and to get their side out, and well, it worked. They shifted the narrative.

I’m not sure why this obsessed poster above wants to find old posts from people (who she’s not necessarily responding to now, although that never seems to occur to her) to gloat. It’s juvenile and bizarre, especially for a law firm lawyer, as she claims. As a lawyer, she should be more mature and she should also know that litigation is a long road. And as a firm lawyer, I can’t imagine her billable hours aren’t totally blown.

The lecturing continues! If what you say above is true and if memory serves, then you must be the same smug media lawyer who was previously lecturing a Lively defender that they didn’t understand first amendment law and must not know anything if they were throwing around the term 1A. Is that you? And now you’re cushioning your previous response saying you only ever said a 20% chance of surviving a MTD and anyway the judge is wrong (but conveniently leaving out your prior rants)?

Pretty sure you also claimed that Baldoni would definitely be given the opportunity to amend even after the April deadline passed because amendment was freely granted.

Here’s a little lecture for you, from me. Litigation is hard. On many issues, the law is uncertain and you can’t necessarily predict what a judge will do. So when lawyers here do their best to perform legal analysis and make an educated guess on what will happen, maybe don’t insult them as a knee jerk reaction when their opinion differs from yours. Maybe try not insulting anyone here generally, for a while, as you continue to do to me, above. People are different and contain multitudes, and you don’t know what anyone else’s life is like. Maybe try that. Jmho.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

Yeah, geez lady, lighten up and let us get back to bashing our favorite punching bag!

So what are your thoughts on Lively hiring a CIA psy ops guy for her PR campaign? Nick Shapiro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

DP. More flooding as per Nick Shapiro style…

To Pp focused on the NYT, what do you think of Lively using Nick Shapiro for her PR team? Any thoughts on that?

I was the 20% NYT person if I recall, and I think almost the only poster who thought the MTD could survive (but be limited). I still think liman’s decision wasn’t quite right and there were aspects of the NYTs coverage that went beyond fair report, and Baldoni should have been permitted discovery to find out more… although liman did give freedman the chance to amend and he didn’t. Not sure if that was a huge mistake or not, and I’m not sure how focused wayfarer et al were on the lawsuit to begin with. Most people thought it was for PR and to get their side out, and well, it worked. They shifted the narrative.

I’m not sure why this obsessed poster above wants to find old posts from people (who she’s not necessarily responding to now, although that never seems to occur to her) to gloat. It’s juvenile and bizarre, especially for a law firm lawyer, as she claims. As a lawyer, she should be more mature and she should also know that litigation is a long road. And as a firm lawyer, I can’t imagine her billable hours aren’t totally blown.

The lecturing continues! If what you say above is true and if memory serves, then you must be the same smug media lawyer who was previously lecturing a Lively defender that they didn’t understand first amendment law and must not know anything if they were throwing around the term 1A. Is that you? And now you’re cushioning your previous response saying you only ever said a 20% chance of surviving a MTD and anyway the judge is wrong (but conveniently leaving out your prior rants)?

Pretty sure you also claimed that Baldoni would definitely be given the opportunity to amend even after the April deadline passed because amendment was freely granted.

Here’s a little lecture for you, from me. Litigation is hard. On many issues, the law is uncertain and you can’t necessarily predict what a judge will do. So when lawyers here do their best to perform legal analysis and make an educated guess on what will happen, maybe don’t insult them as a knee jerk reaction when their opinion differs from yours. Maybe try not insulting anyone here generally, for a while, as you continue to do to me, above. People are different and contain multitudes, and you don’t know what anyone else’s life is like. Maybe try that. Jmho.

So what are your thoughts on Lively hiring a CIA psy ops guy for her PR campaign? Nick Shapiro…

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

I am not the poster you are talking about, but you are just making things up. You'll see two or three posts from the same person and that becomes "you're here 20 hours a day." Your obsession with these posts and this poster (and the fan fiction you are writing in your head about their backstory, their home life, their job, etc.) is so much more unhealthy than someone just reposting some things from earlier in the thread to prove a point. At least that poster is actually talking about the case that is the subject of the thread? You are just attacking them and calling them names and imagining elaborate scenarios about their life.

Respectfully, you need to log off.

[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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

Actually I rarely comment on this thread. This might be my 3rd comment total - I just happen to have some time this morning. But every time I check in on the latest here, I find you and folks like you name-calling and insulting the other posters for daring to think that Lively has a case and that Baldoni probably did something illegal.

-Not a lawyer, just interested in how the public skewers women for daring to speak up.

[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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp, you have yet to figure out you are here 24/7 and the rest of us check in once or twice a day? No, it isn’t the same. Nor do we post insane reddit theories, dreg up old posts, post under multiple different but clearly related personas, etc. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

DP. That's because you assume those that agree with you are normal posters, and therefore different, while the ones on the other side must be the same poster. Constantly insulting the posters and telling them they have no lives is not normal behavior either.

[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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

I am not the poster you are talking about, but you are just making things up. You'll see two or three posts from the same person and that becomes "you're here 20 hours a day." Your obsession with these posts and this poster (and the fan fiction you are writing in your head about their backstory, their home life, their job, etc.) is so much more unhealthy than someone just reposting some things from earlier in the thread to prove a point. At least that poster is actually talking about the case that is the subject of the thread? You are just attacking them and calling them names and imagining elaborate scenarios about their life.

Respectfully, you need to log off.

Nice try, writing style very identifiable.

[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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

I am not the poster you are talking about, but you are just making things up. You'll see two or three posts from the same person and that becomes "you're here 20 hours a day." Your obsession with these posts and this poster (and the fan fiction you are writing in your head about their backstory, their home life, their job, etc.) is so much more unhealthy than someone just reposting some things from earlier in the thread to prove a point. At least that poster is actually talking about the case that is the subject of the thread? You are just attacking them and calling them names and imagining elaborate scenarios about their life.

Respectfully, you need to log off.

Thank you. I appreciate this.

[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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

I am not the poster you are talking about, but you are just making things up. You'll see two or three posts from the same person and that becomes "you're here 20 hours a day." Your obsession with these posts and this poster (and the fan fiction you are writing in your head about their backstory, their home life, their job, etc.) is so much more unhealthy than someone just reposting some things from earlier in the thread to prove a point. At least that poster is actually talking about the case that is the subject of the thread? You are just attacking them and calling them names and imagining elaborate scenarios about their life.

Respectfully, you need to log off.

Dp. This seems like more Nick Shapiro style posting style. Encourage people to log off and disengage, and continue to flood the space with sh^t (like cycling through old posts again and again to distract).

So what are your thoughts on the Nick Shapiro pr hire? Do you consider that waging a smear campaign?

I will admit you seem to add your own little personal sparkle to your incessant posts. Juvenile language and cringe attempts at insults to others coupled with quick sensitivity about people being mean to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

Actually I rarely comment on this thread. This might be my 3rd comment total - I just happen to have some time this morning. But every time I check in on the latest here, I find you and folks like you name-calling and insulting the other posters for daring to think that Lively has a case and that Baldoni probably did something illegal.

-Not a lawyer, just interested in how the public skewers women for daring to speak up.

Righto. You’re just a random neutral (eg not paid) poster chiming in, standing up for women. #bullsh~t