Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Breen not Brenden

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if Freedman does Lively’s dep on Monday, then gets more docs from Lively and complains that he needs another deposition to ask her about them, Liman will say no, it was your choice to schedule the dep that early.

Agree. If Lively is thinking of bailing, she shouldn't.

And here is NAG saying that of course Freedman could start Lively's deposition without having all the docs, take as much of as he could, and then come back after all the docs are in and say they need another deposition now because they have all the docs, and that this is totally normal and happens all the time. So NAG is saying it would be perfectly okay to depose Lively on Monday 6/23, get more docs, and then come back and ask for another dep. She doesn't say it explicitly, but the implication is that if Lively objected to a second dep, and Freedman moved to compel, Liman would allow it. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7517479385616764174

I do not think NAG is understanding that the judge has already said that each deponent will only be deposed once. She's advising Baldoni fans to have a far more optimistic perspective on this approach than than should, and is not doing them a service this time. I like NAG generally and enjoy her perspective, but a PP Baldoni supporter was saying earlier that she seemed to be suggesting results that didn't turn out to be true, and I think that is the case here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if Freedman does Lively’s dep on Monday, then gets more docs from Lively and complains that he needs another deposition to ask her about them, Liman will say no, it was your choice to schedule the dep that early.

Agree. If Lively is thinking of bailing, she shouldn't.

And here is NAG saying that of course Freedman could start Lively's deposition without having all the docs, take as much of as he could, and then come back after all the docs are in and say they need another deposition now because they have all the docs, and that this is totally normal and happens all the time. So NAG is saying it would be perfectly okay to depose Lively on Monday 6/23, get more docs, and then come back and ask for another dep. She doesn't say it explicitly, but the implication is that if Lively objected to a second dep, and Freedman moved to compel, Liman would allow it. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7517479385616764174

I do not think NAG is understanding that the judge has already said that each deponent will only be deposed once. She's advising Baldoni fans to have a far more optimistic perspective on this approach than than should, and is not doing them a service this time. I like NAG generally and enjoy her perspective, but a PP Baldoni supporter was saying earlier that she seemed to be suggesting results that didn't turn out to be true, and I think that is the case here.

I was that PP and yes, I'm feeling disappointed because I just feel like she is so off the mark with Liman's decisions and I'm wondering if she is subconsciously pandering to the pro-JB side because of how many of us watching are pro-JB. I think we're part of the problem though, lol, because if she were subtly pro-BL from the start, we wouldn't have tuned in.

One litigator here has established that Liman makes unusual, yet not incorrect decisions, but at this point, we're now aware of that and she hasn't course corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if Freedman does Lively’s dep on Monday, then gets more docs from Lively and complains that he needs another deposition to ask her about them, Liman will say no, it was your choice to schedule the dep that early.

Agree. If Lively is thinking of bailing, she shouldn't.

And here is NAG saying that of course Freedman could start Lively's deposition without having all the docs, take as much of as he could, and then come back after all the docs are in and say they need another deposition now because they have all the docs, and that this is totally normal and happens all the time. So NAG is saying it would be perfectly okay to depose Lively on Monday 6/23, get more docs, and then come back and ask for another dep. She doesn't say it explicitly, but the implication is that if Lively objected to a second dep, and Freedman moved to compel, Liman would allow it. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7517479385616764174

I do not think NAG is understanding that the judge has already said that each deponent will only be deposed once. She's advising Baldoni fans to have a far more optimistic perspective on this approach than than should, and is not doing them a service this time. I like NAG generally and enjoy her perspective, but a PP Baldoni supporter was saying earlier that she seemed to be suggesting results that didn't turn out to be true, and I think that is the case here.

I was that PP and yes, I'm feeling disappointed because I just feel like she is so off the mark with Liman's decisions and I'm wondering if she is subconsciously pandering to the pro-JB side because of how many of us watching are pro-JB. I think we're part of the problem though, lol, because if she were subtly pro-BL from the start, we wouldn't have tuned in.

One litigator here has established that Liman makes unusual, yet not incorrect decisions, but at this point, we're now aware of that and she hasn't course corrected.

*has said, not established

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if Freedman does Lively’s dep on Monday, then gets more docs from Lively and complains that he needs another deposition to ask her about them, Liman will say no, it was your choice to schedule the dep that early.

Agree. If Lively is thinking of bailing, she shouldn't.

And here is NAG saying that of course Freedman could start Lively's deposition without having all the docs, take as much of as he could, and then come back after all the docs are in and say they need another deposition now because they have all the docs, and that this is totally normal and happens all the time. So NAG is saying it would be perfectly okay to depose Lively on Monday 6/23, get more docs, and then come back and ask for another dep. She doesn't say it explicitly, but the implication is that if Lively objected to a second dep, and Freedman moved to compel, Liman would allow it. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7517479385616764174

I do not think NAG is understanding that the judge has already said that each deponent will only be deposed once. She's advising Baldoni fans to have a far more optimistic perspective on this approach than than should, and is not doing them a service this time. I like NAG generally and enjoy her perspective, but a PP Baldoni supporter was saying earlier that she seemed to be suggesting results that didn't turn out to be true, and I think that is the case here.

I was that PP and yes, I'm feeling disappointed because I just feel like she is so off the mark with Liman's decisions and I'm wondering if she is subconsciously pandering to the pro-JB side because of how many of us watching are pro-JB. I think we're part of the problem though, lol, because if she were subtly pro-BL from the start, we wouldn't have tuned in.

One litigator here has said [edit] that Liman makes unusual, yet not incorrect decisions, but at this point, we're now aware of that and she hasn't course corrected.

I'm PP and yeah I don't think NAG is right here, maybe out of unintentional bias etc plus not accounting for Liman's stickler-ness and tight adherence to the schedule. Also, I think most of us here are just following this one case and so remember little details like Liman saying only one dep per person, while I think NAG is following 3-5 different cases, and is probably really just intending to give broad overall legal wisdom that isn't necessarily taking into account the particular attorneys on the case or the particular judge. I do think she is a bit (maybe unconsciously and/or maybe for the reason you note about followers -- like, she wouldn't want to find herself in an Ask2Lawyers situation) biased toward giving input that favors Baldoni tbh. BUT to be clear, I am a Lively supporter so maybe I'm biased here too. I'm not intending to mislead you about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She tried a Hail Mary and it failed

But the question is why, makes one think that there really is something quite bad for Blake in the Taylor texts.

She was accused of deleting texts and asking TS to also delete. So maybe there is something there or maybe this is her attempt to show TS she is doing her best to protect her to win back her friendship. Maybe a bit of both. I’m inclined to think there’s something in the texts but nothing horrible - maybe embarrassing

Most litigants don’t file a meritless motion for no good reason, but nice try.

I’m not totally convinced about every single one of the motions to compel that Gottlieb etc are filing to force the parties and third parties to produce what Gottlieb wants, but I’ll defend it generally because he knows that Liman is on a schedule and that he will not want to stray from that schedule without good reason. So if folks are delaying producing the docs Gottlieb needs, he needs to compel them to stay on schedule.

Meanwhile, Freedman isn’t doing any of this (except in response to Gottlieb), and is not moving forward on making arguments to the court on any of his own supposedly very important issues like the VanZan subpoena or the Swift extortion/destruction, except through Lively’s super early deposition, which to me (if it happens) still seems very reckless since he will go to trial without having questioned her on most of the docs. Like another poster said earlier, it’s giving off those “I’ll just amend my complaint later” vibes.

The burden of proof is Lively’s. Maybe Freedman isn’t worried because he knows she won’t find anything on her fishing expedition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if Freedman does Lively’s dep on Monday, then gets more docs from Lively and complains that he needs another deposition to ask her about them, Liman will say no, it was your choice to schedule the dep that early.

Agree. If Lively is thinking of bailing, she shouldn't.

And here is NAG saying that of course Freedman could start Lively's deposition without having all the docs, take as much of as he could, and then come back after all the docs are in and say they need another deposition now because they have all the docs, and that this is totally normal and happens all the time. So NAG is saying it would be perfectly okay to depose Lively on Monday 6/23, get more docs, and then come back and ask for another dep. She doesn't say it explicitly, but the implication is that if Lively objected to a second dep, and Freedman moved to compel, Liman would allow it. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7517479385616764174

I do not think NAG is understanding that the judge has already said that each deponent will only be deposed once. She's advising Baldoni fans to have a far more optimistic perspective on this approach than than should, and is not doing them a service this time. I like NAG generally and enjoy her perspective, but a PP Baldoni supporter was saying earlier that she seemed to be suggesting results that didn't turn out to be true, and I think that is the case here.

This is Federal Court. One deposition is the norm absent really specific reasons for more time. This is not a difficult case. There is no reason to think that more than one day would be required. If the reason is we did not have the documents, the judge will not reward that unless Lively hid them. This was a choice to do it now. People think this is a complicated case but I doubt the judge does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She tried a Hail Mary and it failed

But the question is why, makes one think that there really is something quite bad for Blake in the Taylor texts.

She was accused of deleting texts and asking TS to also delete. So maybe there is something there or maybe this is her attempt to show TS she is doing her best to protect her to win back her friendship. Maybe a bit of both. I’m inclined to think there’s something in the texts but nothing horrible - maybe embarrassing

Most litigants don’t file a meritless motion for no good reason, but nice try.

I’m not totally convinced about every single one of the motions to compel that Gottlieb etc are filing to force the parties and third parties to produce what Gottlieb wants, but I’ll defend it generally because he knows that Liman is on a schedule and that he will not want to stray from that schedule without good reason. So if folks are delaying producing the docs Gottlieb needs, he needs to compel them to stay on schedule.

Meanwhile, Freedman isn’t doing any of this (except in response to Gottlieb), and is not moving forward on making arguments to the court on any of his own supposedly very important issues like the VanZan subpoena or the Swift extortion/destruction, except through Lively’s super early deposition, which to me (if it happens) still seems very reckless since he will go to trial without having questioned her on most of the docs. Like another poster said earlier, it’s giving off those “I’ll just amend my complaint later” vibes.

The burden of proof is Lively’s. Maybe Freedman isn’t worried because he knows she won’t find anything on her fishing expedition.

Liman will not allow in anything related to Taylor Swift. Full stop. This is a show already and he will not add to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She tried a Hail Mary and it failed

But the question is why, makes one think that there really is something quite bad for Blake in the Taylor texts.

She was accused of deleting texts and asking TS to also delete. So maybe there is something there or maybe this is her attempt to show TS she is doing her best to protect her to win back her friendship. Maybe a bit of both. I’m inclined to think there’s something in the texts but nothing horrible - maybe embarrassing

Most litigants don’t file a meritless motion for no good reason, but nice try.

I’m not totally convinced about every single one of the motions to compel that Gottlieb etc are filing to force the parties and third parties to produce what Gottlieb wants, but I’ll defend it generally because he knows that Liman is on a schedule and that he will not want to stray from that schedule without good reason. So if folks are delaying producing the docs Gottlieb needs, he needs to compel them to stay on schedule.

Meanwhile, Freedman isn’t doing any of this (except in response to Gottlieb), and is not moving forward on making arguments to the court on any of his own supposedly very important issues like the VanZan subpoena or the Swift extortion/destruction, except through Lively’s super early deposition, which to me (if it happens) still seems very reckless since he will go to trial without having questioned her on most of the docs. Like another poster said earlier, it’s giving off those “I’ll just amend my complaint later” vibes.

The burden of proof is Lively’s. Maybe Freedman isn’t worried because he knows she won’t find anything on her fishing expedition.

Liman will not allow in anything related to Taylor Swift. Full stop. This is a show already and he will not add to it.

If it's relevant he will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She tried a Hail Mary and it failed

But the question is why, makes one think that there really is something quite bad for Blake in the Taylor texts.

She was accused of deleting texts and asking TS to also delete. So maybe there is something there or maybe this is her attempt to show TS she is doing her best to protect her to win back her friendship. Maybe a bit of both. I’m inclined to think there’s something in the texts but nothing horrible - maybe embarrassing

Most litigants don’t file a meritless motion for no good reason, but nice try.

I’m not totally convinced about every single one of the motions to compel that Gottlieb etc are filing to force the parties and third parties to produce what Gottlieb wants, but I’ll defend it generally because he knows that Liman is on a schedule and that he will not want to stray from that schedule without good reason. So if folks are delaying producing the docs Gottlieb needs, he needs to compel them to stay on schedule.

Meanwhile, Freedman isn’t doing any of this (except in response to Gottlieb), and is not moving forward on making arguments to the court on any of his own supposedly very important issues like the VanZan subpoena or the Swift extortion/destruction, except through Lively’s super early deposition, which to me (if it happens) still seems very reckless since he will go to trial without having questioned her on most of the docs. Like another poster said earlier, it’s giving off those “I’ll just amend my complaint later” vibes.

The burden of proof is Lively’s. Maybe Freedman isn’t worried because he knows she won’t find anything on her fishing expedition.

Liman will not allow in anything related to Taylor Swift. Full stop. This is a show already and he will not add to it.

That’s a silly statement. If Blake sent a text to Taylor saying “I set Justin up to get the rights to the second book,” it’s coming in. Basically anything that would be relevant and admissible if it was between Blake and someone not named Taylor
Swift is also coming in if it’s between Blake and Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone besides lawyers follow this thread, at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone besides lawyers follow this thread, at this point?

I’m a lawyer but not interested in all this detail. Imo this detail is mostly pro Lively shills trying to flood the space with semi useless chatter couched as ‘legal analysis’ that of course is pro Lively (but will occasionally pretend to be ‘balanced’) to distract from the general disdain of Blake and what she’s done.

They’ll of course claim this is a lie, and they’re organic but most of us normal people on here have long noticed their patterns. They tend to work as a pair. These posters also claim to be lawyers or even litigators at law firms and there is just no way that a law firm lawyer tied to billable hour requirements would have time to post for 14+ hours a day as these two seem to (in addition to their stalking of lawyers and reading of every single motion on this case)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone besides lawyers follow this thread, at this point?

I’m a lawyer but not interested in all this detail. Imo this detail is mostly pro Lively shills trying to flood the space with semi useless chatter couched as ‘legal analysis’ that of course is pro Lively (but will occasionally pretend to be ‘balanced’) to distract from the general disdain of Blake and what she’s done.

They’ll of course claim this is a lie, and they’re organic but most of us normal people on here have long noticed their patterns. They tend to work as a pair. These posters also claim to be lawyers or even litigators at law firms and there is just no way that a law firm lawyer tied to billable hour requirements would have time to post for 14+ hours a day as these two seem to (in addition to their stalking of lawyers and reading of every single motion on this case)

Also a lawyer and agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone besides lawyers follow this thread, at this point?

I’m a lawyer but not interested in all this detail. Imo this detail is mostly pro Lively shills trying to flood the space with semi useless chatter couched as ‘legal analysis’ that of course is pro Lively (but will occasionally pretend to be ‘balanced’) to distract from the general disdain of Blake and what she’s done.

They’ll of course claim this is a lie, and they’re organic but most of us normal people on here have long noticed their patterns. They tend to work as a pair. These posters also claim to be lawyers or even litigators at law firms and there is just no way that a law firm lawyer tied to billable hour requirements would have time to post for 14+ hours a day as these two seem to (in addition to their stalking of lawyers and reading of every single motion on this case)

Also a lawyer and agree.

Thank you for seeing it. Sometimes I feel like I’m crazy which I guess is their goal!

And Jeff finds this topic and thread annoying and doesn’t want to deal with it. And I’m sure the duo is using VPN and whatever else to hide themselves.

[Anonymous]

To each his own. I'm a lawyer and thought the thread was more interesting the last couple of days with less of the bickering.