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:

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.

PP here and you are nuts. I'm actually going to take my own and advice and close this tab for the day because I don't have the energy for this after this awful weekend of political violence. Good luck with whatever it is you are doing here, I guess.

[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:

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

Wow. You're insane.

[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.

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.

Most people think there are a few of you.

So what do you think of Blake’s Nick Shapiro cia hire? It’s funny that lively posters will go back 30 pages to find a post that supports their position and to gloat, but typically can’t engage in current substantive discussion.

[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.

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.

We don’t have to assume. Unless you think there is more than one poster dragging up three month old posts, linking endlessly to the docket, etc . . By the language of her own posts, it’s one person. She freely admits it.

[Anonymous]

Or, my favorite, more than one poster who believes Baldoni pays people for downvotes on Reddit, that’s a classic. But she is, as she repeatedly says, not a “Lively fan.”

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, we are not actually your puppets and thus are not required to talk about Nick Shapiro just because you post it here 17 times. lol

[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.

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.

PP here and you are nuts. I'm actually going to take my own and advice and close this tab for the day because I don't have the energy for this after this awful weekend of political violence. Good luck with whatever it is you are doing here, I guess.

Oh now it’s lively people with insults?

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, we are not actually your puppets and thus are not required to talk about Nick Shapiro just because you post it here 17 times. lol

Interesting. Of course you don’t want to talk about Shapiro. Bc you want to distract and flood places talking about these issues with nonsense

[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:

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

Wow. You're insane.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, we are not actually your puppets and thus are not required to talk about Nick Shapiro just because you post it here 17 times. lol

Dp. Who is ‘we’? I thought you are all just random independent people on here… but suddenly you speak for all pro Blake people on here? And know that none of them will want to discuss her hire of a CIA psy ops guy for PR help?

[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:

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.

We don’t have to assume. Unless you think there is more than one poster dragging up three month old posts, linking endlessly to the docket, etc . . By the language of her own posts, it’s one person. She freely admits it.

PP. Yes, think that one is the same person, but I don’t think every person that is defending her from personal attacks about her age and being a cat lady are the same person, which people are implying.

Anyway, to the person posting about Shapiro, I would be open to any proof they are planting stories on Baldoni. That wouldn't surprise me.

[Anonymous]

Judge Liman signaling further incoming carnage may be expected for Baldoni/Freedman by asking the Lively parties to indicate by 5pm today whether any part of its Motion to Compel the third party interrogatories (seeking info re content creators that were originally due three months ago) have been rendered moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman signaling further incoming carnage may be expected for Baldoni/Freedman by asking the Lively parties to indicate by 5pm today whether any part of its Motion to Compel the third party interrogatories (seeking info re content creators that were originally due three months ago) have been rendered moot.

He runs a tight ship. Guessing the answer is no, that they have not made progress.

[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.

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.

PP here and you are nuts. I'm actually going to take my own and advice and close this tab for the day because I don't have the energy for this after this awful weekend of political violence. Good luck with whatever it is you are doing here, I guess.

I just wanted to say I’m sorry you were treated this way here (though not really surprised). I think Baldoni supporters are still mad about the dismissal, it might die down a bit in a few days, hope you come back! — mom who is not actually childless or have cats but does like cats, cats are great.

[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.

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

Flood the zone with A.I. spam, try to juke Google, cyber-bully, present a bunch of juked inflated "data" to Blake and Ryan to demonstrate how they're "turning the tide" and winning the information war, and bill them for another couple million dollars? Rinse, repeat.