Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted this excerpt on Reddit from an interview Twohey gave to NPR in Dec. I had never seen it. Interesting. Sounds like even BL knows her SH claims won’t hold up in court, which many of us have being saying all along. She’s really focused on the smear campaign. Problem is she may really have gotten it wrong. I think there’s a good chance the smear campaign never happened. Also interesting that lively seemingly knew her accusations were mild but went on to use them as leverage for maximum control over the movie. She told Twohey she never planned to go public but she certainly seemed to benefit from implying that she would. I wonder if Twohey will be called as a witness or if at minimum her public statements will be read into evidence.

“And she told me, like, listen. This was actually not the worst that I have experienced in Hollywood. I've actually experienced far worse misconduct. You know, I spoke up because I wanted to address it, and I thought that I had, and I never had any intentions of discussing this or going public with my accusations. And so to watch what happened next and to experience what she now is alleging was this complete campaign of retaliation felt, in many ways, much more sinister than the underlying misconduct.“

Huh, I have a different take on that. It doesn't seem to me that she is saying she wasn't SHed. She's saying this particular SH was not as bad as what she's experienced previously, and that she believed that she could handle it in this case by speaking up and and getting commitments to improve the environment, which she did.

And she believed that was the end of it, until she learned that Baldoni and Wayfarer had launched a retaliation campaign against her in the press and online, and that's what led her to file her complaint.

I don't see anything there where she says she doesn't think she can win her lawsuit or that she doesn't believe what happened was SH. She's just stating honestly that the thing that made her decide to sue was the retaliation campaign, not the SH itself, which she believed she'd been able to deal with during the filming of the movie and had moved past.

None of this is surprising and it's pretty much what I had guessed about Lively's motivations based on her complaint. She does not over-dramatize the SH allegations or their impact on her, and the complaint is much more focused on the retaliation campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted this excerpt on Reddit from an interview Twohey gave to NPR in Dec. I had never seen it. Interesting. Sounds like even BL knows her SH claims won’t hold up in court, which many of us have being saying all along. She’s really focused on the smear campaign. Problem is she may really have gotten it wrong. I think there’s a good chance the smear campaign never happened. Also interesting that lively seemingly knew her accusations were mild but went on to use them as leverage for maximum control over the movie. She told Twohey she never planned to go public but she certainly seemed to benefit from implying that she would. I wonder if Twohey will be called as a witness or if at minimum her public statements will be read into evidence.

“And she told me, like, listen. This was actually not the worst that I have experienced in Hollywood. I've actually experienced far worse misconduct. You know, I spoke up because I wanted to address it, and I thought that I had, and I never had any intentions of discussing this or going public with my accusations. And so to watch what happened next and to experience what she now is alleging was this complete campaign of retaliation felt, in many ways, much more sinister than the underlying misconduct.“

Frankly, this is why I keep on lurking here. I do think that the alleged retaliation is so much more sinister that the misconduct that's being alleged. I'm interested in this case shining a light on retaliation efforts using social media to discredit women, along with the concrete data that I hope they share along this vein. Because if Baldoni et al were so emboldened to do this for what may be very mild sexual harassment (perhaps simply because it contradicted his public persona), just imagine how easy it is for others to do it for more serious claims, against more vulnerable women, and when they have a serious emotional vendetta against a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted this excerpt on Reddit from an interview Twohey gave to NPR in Dec. I had never seen it. Interesting. Sounds like even BL knows her SH claims won’t hold up in court, which many of us have being saying all along. She’s really focused on the smear campaign. Problem is she may really have gotten it wrong. I think there’s a good chance the smear campaign never happened. Also interesting that lively seemingly knew her accusations were mild but went on to use them as leverage for maximum control over the movie. She told Twohey she never planned to go public but she certainly seemed to benefit from implying that she would. I wonder if Twohey will be called as a witness or if at minimum her public statements will be read into evidence.

“And she told me, like, listen. This was actually not the worst that I have experienced in Hollywood. I've actually experienced far worse misconduct. You know, I spoke up because I wanted to address it, and I thought that I had, and I never had any intentions of discussing this or going public with my accusations. And so to watch what happened next and to experience what she now is alleging was this complete campaign of retaliation felt, in many ways, much more sinister than the underlying misconduct.“

Frankly, this is why I keep on lurking here. I do think that the alleged retaliation is so much more sinister that the misconduct that's being alleged. I'm interested in this case shining a light on retaliation efforts using social media to discredit women, along with the concrete data that I hope they share along this vein. Because if Baldoni et al were so emboldened to do this for what may be very mild sexual harassment (perhaps simply because it contradicted his public persona), just imagine how easy it is for others to do it for more serious claims, against more vulnerable women, and when they have a serious emotional vendetta against a woman.

Yes. This also speaks for me.

[Anonymous]

The judge granted the MTC on Content Creators based on Lively's definition. Wayfarer wanted to limit to those with 10k followers and monetized.

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 295 Motion to Compel. The motion is granted as the Content Creator Interrogatory propounded by Lively to TAG. Defined as stated above, the interrogatory is not "hopelessly vague" or unduly burdensome. Dkt. No. 311. It does not include any person who can generate, create, or influence online content, but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer Party. The motion is denied as to the Content Creator Interrogatories propounded by Reynolds, which are moot for the reasons stated above.The motion to compel at Dkt. No. 295 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Wayfarer Parties shall respond by June 25, 2025, to the interrogatories for which the motion is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 295. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/18/2025) (ks) (Entered: 06/18/2025)

[Anonymous]

Oh, here's the link https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni had better not come back in July and say they need another deposition with Lively when they’ve only produced 750 docs collectively so far amongst all their parties. That’s astoundingly bad.

It sounds like all Blake has done is turn over the Wayfarer texts she got from Jones. Given she’s the plaintiff, that’s not great.

To be fair, the email notes she was making another production the next day, which would have happened by now.

Note also that the 2K docs are what Lively alone had produced, which even by itself outnumbered by several times what all of the Wayfarer parties put together had produced. Where are all of the texts and emails? This is pretty ridiculous.

(Not engaging with sock puppet delusion lady anymore, except to say you guys can never admit you’ve been wrong)

Apparently you can’t either, because Lively’s production of the Jones production is nothing to brag about and yet you continue to tout it.

Lively has made at least one more production since that 2K production, and even not including that additional production, Lively’s one production alone is still nearly four times as many docs as Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Wallace, and Wayfarer all put together lol. This also isn't counting any docs that Reynolds and Sloane produced.

Again, WF's Counsel submitted a declaration today saying they have yet to receive a single document responsive to their First Request for Documents from Lively. Guess Gottlieb et al was too busy drafting Motions for Sanctions.

It's a really bad look to be so behind in document production as the plaintiff, especially when one's counsel have been bombing the Court with all types of motions, including discovery motions. In essence, all Lively's team has done is sent over the WF defendants copies of their own texts.

I would take accusations from both sides that the other is "behind" in production with a grain of salt. First of all, the discovery deadline has not passed -- parties will often wait until the last minute and then dump a bunch of docs. And that's allowed, for the most part. Second, both parties have likely requested documents that don't exist or which the other side will argue aren't relevant. This is also standard. Like if Baldoni's request for documents asked that Blake provide all documents where she talks about trying to steal the movie and her intentions to make up some SH allegations to do so, it's likely she has not produced those because they don't exist. Likewise, we know Blake is asking for documents where Baldoni/Wayfarer/Freedman conspire with content creators to smear Blake. Those may also not exist. So saying your opponent has "failed" to produce documents doesn't always mean they are dragging their feet. It can can mean there is nothing responsive, or that the party is in the process of objecting to the request. Both sides are doing this.

None of this matters in the end. Honestly, at this point, I don't think the bickering is going to be that determinative unless/until we get to summary judgment and agreed stipulations before trial. The back and forth over discovery will largely be small potatoes.

The bolded is why I'm surprised her depo is scheduled for June 23rd. She's kind of a drama queen and apparently likes to come up with last emergencies and delays, but it would really behoove her to show up on time for that.

It is totally Freedman's decision to take Lively's deposition this early, before doc production is even substantially complete, even though Liman has said only one deposition of each witness will be allowed. To me, this is another reckless decision by him done for its performative value and for headlines, which actually risks giving up valuable legal gains he could have made if he waited for all the docs. This is on Freedman.

PP. I can see this being another "it's fine, we'll just amend later," and then, oops. Like if he's telling his clients this is a great strategy to get a second deposition later and then the judge refuses. I think June 23 is also the deadline to amend the complaint on the contract claims.

Good point about the amendment being due on the same day, and yes, I agree on how familiar this feels coming from Freedman. I don't know whether he's hoping to get something from the dep that would affect the amendment, which is maybe the only real good reason to do it this early?

Also noting (which I think I missed before) that Fritz filed a cross motion to compel Lively's production of these sexual harassment, Sony, WME, and Swift communications. Of all the other communications asked for in those 130 RFPs, the Swift ones are the ones that really make Freedman's heart beat faster and that he needs even before Lively's communications with Jenny Slate, her costar on the film.

Hmm, I wonder what he might have learned about those texts from Venable that led to his prioritizing them. I’m sure no reason for any Lively supporters to be concerned given that you all are convinced of his incompetence.

As a Lively supporter, I will admit that Freedman occasionally comes through [b]and that I'm genuinely scared of what he may have that might make Lively look bad.

At the same time, there is a decently good chance that Freedman has nothing, and is just hoping to intimidate Lively.

Freedman himself should be a little scared at this point and to me that makes him dangerous. He's had some significant losses here and his clients must be questioning him and/or disappointed with him. If I were a Baldoni supporter, I would be disappointed.

I'm not the least bit disappointed in him. He got public sentiment behind Baldoni quickly and efficiently.

Good PR guy/so so lawyer? He never had the guns or chops to fight biglaw. He is a loudmouth. He won public opinion but is heading towards a loss in this case. Baldoni will owe her millions.

Freedman sure does live rent-free in your head.

No just a lawyer that looked at a few of the pleadings and they are not SDNY level. He will be crushed as this case moves forward.

Right, which is why you post about him constantly here in an obsessive manner.

DP but obviously Freedman gets discussed frequently on this thread because he's a main player in the case, and he makes himself the story frequently. No one is "obsessed" with him

Nope. There is at least one Lively poster that goes far behind that.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think this is actually how the Lively team intended this category to be interpreted, “but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer Party.” With that latitude, I think WF say none.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni had better not come back in July and say they need another deposition with Lively when they’ve only produced 750 docs collectively so far amongst all their parties. That’s astoundingly bad.

It sounds like all Blake has done is turn over the Wayfarer texts she got from Jones. Given she’s the plaintiff, that’s not great.

To be fair, the email notes she was making another production the next day, which would have happened by now.

Note also that the 2K docs are what Lively alone had produced, which even by itself outnumbered by several times what all of the Wayfarer parties put together had produced. Where are all of the texts and emails? This is pretty ridiculous.

(Not engaging with sock puppet delusion lady anymore, except to say you guys can never admit you’ve been wrong)

Apparently you can’t either, because Lively’s production of the Jones production is nothing to brag about and yet you continue to tout it.

Lively has made at least one more production since that 2K production, and even not including that additional production, Lively’s one production alone is still nearly four times as many docs as Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Wallace, and Wayfarer all put together lol. This also isn't counting any docs that Reynolds and Sloane produced.

Again, WF's Counsel submitted a declaration today saying they have yet to receive a single document responsive to their First Request for Documents from Lively. Guess Gottlieb et al was too busy drafting Motions for Sanctions.

It's a really bad look to be so behind in document production as the plaintiff, especially when one's counsel have been bombing the Court with all types of motions, including discovery motions. In essence, all Lively's team has done is sent over the WF defendants copies of their own texts.

I would take accusations from both sides that the other is "behind" in production with a grain of salt. First of all, the discovery deadline has not passed -- parties will often wait until the last minute and then dump a bunch of docs. And that's allowed, for the most part. Second, both parties have likely requested documents that don't exist or which the other side will argue aren't relevant. This is also standard. Like if Baldoni's request for documents asked that Blake provide all documents where she talks about trying to steal the movie and her intentions to make up some SH allegations to do so, it's likely she has not produced those because they don't exist. Likewise, we know Blake is asking for documents where Baldoni/Wayfarer/Freedman conspire with content creators to smear Blake. Those may also not exist. So saying your opponent has "failed" to produce documents doesn't always mean they are dragging their feet. It can can mean there is nothing responsive, or that the party is in the process of objecting to the request. Both sides are doing this.

None of this matters in the end. Honestly, at this point, I don't think the bickering is going to be that determinative unless/until we get to summary judgment and agreed stipulations before trial. The back and forth over discovery will largely be small potatoes.

The bolded is why I'm surprised her depo is scheduled for June 23rd. She's kind of a drama queen and apparently likes to come up with last emergencies and delays, but it would really behoove her to show up on time for that.

It is totally Freedman's decision to take Lively's deposition this early, before doc production is even substantially complete, even though Liman has said only one deposition of each witness will be allowed. To me, this is another reckless decision by him done for its performative value and for headlines, which actually risks giving up valuable legal gains he could have made if he waited for all the docs. This is on Freedman.

PP. I can see this being another "it's fine, we'll just amend later," and then, oops. Like if he's telling his clients this is a great strategy to get a second deposition later and then the judge refuses. I think June 23 is also the deadline to amend the complaint on the contract claims.

Good point about the amendment being due on the same day, and yes, I agree on how familiar this feels coming from Freedman. I don't know whether he's hoping to get something from the dep that would affect the amendment, which is maybe the only real good reason to do it this early?

Also noting (which I think I missed before) that Fritz filed a cross motion to compel Lively's production of these sexual harassment, Sony, WME, and Swift communications. Of all the other communications asked for in those 130 RFPs, the Swift ones are the ones that really make Freedman's heart beat faster and that he needs even before Lively's communications with Jenny Slate, her costar on the film.

Hmm, I wonder what he might have learned about those texts from Venable that led to his prioritizing them. I’m sure no reason for any Lively supporters to be concerned given that you all are convinced of his incompetence.

As a Lively supporter, I will admit that Freedman occasionally comes through [b]and that I'm genuinely scared of what he may have that might make Lively look bad.

At the same time, there is a decently good chance that Freedman has nothing, and is just hoping to intimidate Lively.

Freedman himself should be a little scared at this point and to me that makes him dangerous. He's had some significant losses here and his clients must be questioning him and/or disappointed with him. If I were a Baldoni supporter, I would be disappointed.

I'm not the least bit disappointed in him. He got public sentiment behind Baldoni quickly and efficiently.

Good PR guy/so so lawyer? He never had the guns or chops to fight biglaw. He is a loudmouth. He won public opinion but is heading towards a loss in this case. Baldoni will owe her millions.

Someone doesn’t deal with many successful plaintiff’s counsel. They are almost never big law alums.

DP. Agree, everyone who’s practiced law for more than a minute knows that biglaw isn’t all that in many areas, especially for Ps work. Sometimes I wonder if this so called lawyer PP is a law student on summer break.

Yes, all of your own theories and legal analysis have been so very excellent so far. Like the alleged sock puppeting that some Baldoni fan has been claiming that Jeff specifically came into the thread to say didn't happen/was a mistake.

The truth here is that Baldoni's high ticket claims are all gone, and he is facing paying (lol, having his rich benefactor Sarowitz pay) attorneys fees, triple damages, and punitives through 47.1, which is not even counting potential damages from Lively's own remaining claims. You don't think Baldoni will come out of this potentially owing her millions? (Maybe he should settle RIGHT NOW lol.)

No idea what this bizarre rant is about, but again, you seem to not understand a lot about lawyers despite claiming to be one. And you are f’in obsessed with Freedman.

[Anonymous]

Judge allows service of Matthew Mitchell through means other than direct service at Lively's request (after repeated attempts at direct service failed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.356.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge allows service of Matthew Mitchell through means other than direct service at Lively's request (after repeated attempts at direct service failed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.356.0.pdf

What's Matthew Mitchell's potential role in all of this? I know he works for Jonesworks, but it wasn't until a week ago that I had first heard his name floating around.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni had better not come back in July and say they need another deposition with Lively when they’ve only produced 750 docs collectively so far amongst all their parties. That’s astoundingly bad.

It sounds like all Blake has done is turn over the Wayfarer texts she got from Jones. Given she’s the plaintiff, that’s not great.

To be fair, the email notes she was making another production the next day, which would have happened by now.

Note also that the 2K docs are what Lively alone had produced, which even by itself outnumbered by several times what all of the Wayfarer parties put together had produced. Where are all of the texts and emails? This is pretty ridiculous.

(Not engaging with sock puppet delusion lady anymore, except to say you guys can never admit you’ve been wrong)

Apparently you can’t either, because Lively’s production of the Jones production is nothing to brag about and yet you continue to tout it.

Lively has made at least one more production since that 2K production, and even not including that additional production, Lively’s one production alone is still nearly four times as many docs as Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Wallace, and Wayfarer all put together lol. This also isn't counting any docs that Reynolds and Sloane produced.

Again, WF's Counsel submitted a declaration today saying they have yet to receive a single document responsive to their First Request for Documents from Lively. Guess Gottlieb et al was too busy drafting Motions for Sanctions.

It's a really bad look to be so behind in document production as the plaintiff, especially when one's counsel have been bombing the Court with all types of motions, including discovery motions. In essence, all Lively's team has done is sent over the WF defendants copies of their own texts.

I would take accusations from both sides that the other is "behind" in production with a grain of salt. First of all, the discovery deadline has not passed -- parties will often wait until the last minute and then dump a bunch of docs. And that's allowed, for the most part. Second, both parties have likely requested documents that don't exist or which the other side will argue aren't relevant. This is also standard. Like if Baldoni's request for documents asked that Blake provide all documents where she talks about trying to steal the movie and her intentions to make up some SH allegations to do so, it's likely she has not produced those because they don't exist. Likewise, we know Blake is asking for documents where Baldoni/Wayfarer/Freedman conspire with content creators to smear Blake. Those may also not exist. So saying your opponent has "failed" to produce documents doesn't always mean they are dragging their feet. It can can mean there is nothing responsive, or that the party is in the process of objecting to the request. Both sides are doing this.

None of this matters in the end. Honestly, at this point, I don't think the bickering is going to be that determinative unless/until we get to summary judgment and agreed stipulations before trial. The back and forth over discovery will largely be small potatoes.

The bolded is why I'm surprised her depo is scheduled for June 23rd. She's kind of a drama queen and apparently likes to come up with last emergencies and delays, but it would really behoove her to show up on time for that.

It is totally Freedman's decision to take Lively's deposition this early, before doc production is even substantially complete, even though Liman has said only one deposition of each witness will be allowed. To me, this is another reckless decision by him done for its performative value and for headlines, which actually risks giving up valuable legal gains he could have made if he waited for all the docs. This is on Freedman.

PP. I can see this being another "it's fine, we'll just amend later," and then, oops. Like if he's telling his clients this is a great strategy to get a second deposition later and then the judge refuses. I think June 23 is also the deadline to amend the complaint on the contract claims.

Good point about the amendment being due on the same day, and yes, I agree on how familiar this feels coming from Freedman. I don't know whether he's hoping to get something from the dep that would affect the amendment, which is maybe the only real good reason to do it this early?

Also noting (which I think I missed before) that Fritz filed a cross motion to compel Lively's production of these sexual harassment, Sony, WME, and Swift communications. Of all the other communications asked for in those 130 RFPs, the Swift ones are the ones that really make Freedman's heart beat faster and that he needs even before Lively's communications with Jenny Slate, her costar on the film.

Hmm, I wonder what he might have learned about those texts from Venable that led to his prioritizing them. I’m sure no reason for any Lively supporters to be concerned given that you all are convinced of his incompetence.

As a Lively supporter, I will admit that Freedman occasionally comes through [b]and that I'm genuinely scared of what he may have that might make Lively look bad.

At the same time, there is a decently good chance that Freedman has nothing, and is just hoping to intimidate Lively.

Freedman himself should be a little scared at this point and to me that makes him dangerous. He's had some significant losses here and his clients must be questioning him and/or disappointed with him. If I were a Baldoni supporter, I would be disappointed.

I'm not the least bit disappointed in him. He got public sentiment behind Baldoni quickly and efficiently.

Good PR guy/so so lawyer? He never had the guns or chops to fight biglaw. He is a loudmouth. He won public opinion but is heading towards a loss in this case. Baldoni will owe her millions.

Someone doesn’t deal with many successful plaintiff’s counsel. They are almost never big law alums.

DP. Agree, everyone who’s practiced law for more than a minute knows that biglaw isn’t all that in many areas, especially for Ps work. Sometimes I wonder if this so called lawyer PP is a law student on summer break.

Yes, all of your own theories and legal analysis have been so very excellent so far. Like the alleged sock puppeting that some Baldoni fan has been claiming that Jeff specifically came into the thread to say didn't happen/was a mistake.

The truth here is that Baldoni's high ticket claims are all gone, and he is facing paying (lol, having his rich benefactor Sarowitz pay) attorneys fees, triple damages, and punitives through 47.1, which is not even counting potential damages from Lively's own remaining claims. You don't think Baldoni will come out of this potentially owing her millions? (Maybe he should settle RIGHT NOW lol.)

No idea what this bizarre rant is about, but again, you seem to not understand a lot about lawyers despite claiming to be one. And you are f’in obsessed with Freedman.

Seems pretty coherent to me, and they didn't mention Freedman at all. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is actually how the Lively team intended this category to be interpreted, “but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer Party.” With that latitude, I think WF say none.

I think that's exactly what Lively was asking for. I think you are interpreting "on behalf of or at the request of" WAY too narrowly (and more narrowly than Liman) if you don't think this is what she was asking for. As part of a contract or as a subcontractor or implementer of a contract would meet this definition, as would bots controlled by a party meeting the previous definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

Gotcha, thanks for sharing. While I have you here, I was wondering if his rulings are consistent in their unusualness -- if that makes sense. Like does it seem like his decisions are coming from a particular school of thought or frame of mind? And I'm wondering what you think his rulings indicate for the future of Blake's claims/JB's claims if he ends up amending them.