Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Vituscka need to sub? I thought the MTC against him was either withdrawn or mooted.

It's not really clear to me. Vituscka had previously offered to produce all his texts with Freedman in exchange for being out, and then Liman issued his decision which made everything about Sloane moot as claims against her were dismissed. I assume Vituscka never produced the Freedman texts.

Some of the Reddit subs are talking about this change of counsel development (and other possibly unreliable murmurs from the Without a Crystal Ball person) that something big is coming from Freedman next week, but I don't know. Something new in the Amended Complaint? Or something else?

(I saw Freedman on Meghyn Kelly 8 days ago saying he had four claims still and not two -- I think that was last Thursday or Friday so I'm not sure whether he's worked it out yet.)

I'm the PP - thinking about it more, there's also that pending motion to quash regarding Freedman's law firms contacts with journalists, so that may bring Vituscka back in, but it does seem weird that he'd change counsel now.

I read speculation on Reddit somewhere a few days ago that his prior firm was great at first amendment law, but Geragos and Geragos specialized in criminal law, suggesting that maybe he had committed perjury in his declaration (that seems unlikely to me). The other suggestion was that the other firm was pricier. Or I wonder if Freedman wants to feel more protected ha. Anyway, yeah I don't know.

I would not be surprised if Freedman writes an amended complaint that includes wholly new allegations to make a big splash, or reworked old claims partly based on what he'll claim is new evidence maybe, even though Liman specifically restricted him to two claims. I don't think that would go well for him with Liman but it might make some headlines again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a lawyer and like getting into the nitty gritty details. The discussion of whether it makes sense for Freedman to take Lively's deposition now, before all docs are in, and the likelihood of the judge allowing her to be re-deposed, is interesting to me because Freedman has a unique litigating style that can be very successful but seems high risk to me, a risk averse lawyer. So I'm curious about strategic details like this. I am also interested in how Freedman uses legal moves to manipulate PR in his clients favor, and how he balances certain strategic risks in the legal side against potential PR wins on that side.

I also think Gottlieb and Hudson have made some interesting strategic moves in their motions game, so yeah, keeping an eye in that too.

I feel like this is an interesting case study. If I was teaching a law school course on procedure or civil litigation, I think this would be a fun case to use.

The NYTimes case could have been an interesting case study to me, sucks it was dismissed. So many gray areas, like the VanZan subpoena. I still also maintain that Megan Twohey overstepped the bounds of the fair report privilege. That video was sloppy as hell.

Ditto. I’m frustrated that the NYT case was dismissed in full and think freedman should find a legit first amendment lawyer to appeal. Not sure they’ll bother but it would be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Vituscka need to sub? I thought the MTC against him was either withdrawn or mooted.

It's not really clear to me. Vituscka had previously offered to produce all his texts with Freedman in exchange for being out, and then Liman issued his decision which made everything about Sloane moot as claims against her were dismissed. I assume Vituscka never produced the Freedman texts.

Some of the Reddit subs are talking about this change of counsel development (and other possibly unreliable murmurs from the Without a Crystal Ball person) that something big is coming from Freedman next week, but I don't know. Something new in the Amended Complaint? Or something else?

(I saw Freedman on Meghyn Kelly 8 days ago saying he had four claims still and not two -- I think that was last Thursday or Friday so I'm not sure whether he's worked it out yet.)

I'm the PP - thinking about it more, there's also that pending motion to quash regarding Freedman's law firms contacts with journalists, so that may bring Vituscka back in, but it does seem weird that he'd change counsel now.

I read speculation on Reddit somewhere a few days ago that his prior firm was great at first amendment law, but Geragos and Geragos specialized in criminal law, suggesting that maybe he had committed perjury in his declaration (that seems unlikely to me). The other suggestion was that the other firm was pricier. Or I wonder if Freedman wants to feel more protected ha. Anyway, yeah I don't know.

I would not be surprised if Freedman writes an amended complaint that includes wholly new allegations to make a big splash, or reworked old claims partly based on what he'll claim is new evidence maybe, even though Liman specifically restricted him to two claims. I don't think that would go well for him with Liman but it might make some headlines again.

Dp. This swap baffles me. Truly. I can assume that Ballard Spar, the first law firm, was hired bc daily mail works with them (lots of pubs do) but I cannot fathom the switch to what I believe is more of a criminal law firm.

I actually thought his declaration seemed fishy though

[Anonymous]

The Geragos website says they do civil litigation as well... nothing listed in the realm of first amendment, but I would not speculate this has to do with anything criminal. I remember conspiracy theories about Lively having criminal lawyers added to her team as well.

Hm, interesting theory that Freedman will try to add new claims. When Jones amended her complaint in Jones v Abel she basically replaced every cause of action with something punchier (but she could do that, as none of her claims had been dismissed). Liman's reaction that would be fun.

[Anonymous]

I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Geragos website says they do civil litigation as well... nothing listed in the realm of first amendment, but I would not speculate this has to do with anything criminal. I remember conspiracy theories about Lively having criminal lawyers added to her team as well.

Hm, interesting theory that Freedman will try to add new claims. When Jones amended her complaint in Jones v Abel she basically replaced every cause of action with something punchier (but she could do that, as none of her claims had been dismissed). Liman's reaction that would be fun.

It’s odd to replace Ballard. They’re not that pricey either as far as I have heard. I thought maybe there might be a conflict bc of their representation of another client, but that doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, Geragos does civil litigation but this area of the law is fairly specialized. I’m not saying there’s anything criminal at issue, but it seems like a strange replacement to me.

I don’t know anything about lively having criminal lawyers on her team. Who are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

Why would DM not be paying his legal fees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

Why would DM not be paying his legal fees?

I don't know but that would explain why he switched to a firm that normally would not be hired by a publication of DM's size. And DM has a longstanding relationship with Ballard Spahr. Perhaps his admissions in his affidavit made DM decide it was time to distance itself, perhaps there is concern that if Freedman's communications with him are discovered/made public, it would be better for him to have independent counsel.

If DM *is* still paying, it makes the move extremely weird, borderline nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

The KatOrtega commenter on reddit (I'm a Lively supporter and I read her comments, though I don't always agree) has traced back many times the many co-representations Geragos and Freedman have done together, which I think include the recently released Menendez brothers. Freedman and Geragos co-represented them. They seem to handle a lot of clients that way, it is not just any old working relationship.

[Anonymous]

A BaldoniFiles thread on this topic (not linking here because I know Baldoni supporters don't like that sub) notes that Vituscka was supposed to produce his Freedman texts on Monday, June 23rd hahaha. It's all happening at once, the amended complaint, the lively dep (maybe not), and Vituscka.

I'd be surprised if those Vituscka texts were still compelled. I guess that Vituscka made the deal in order to get out of producing additional information though, so maybe still is relevant? But that other info I thought had to do with Sloane's "statement" about assault and she's no longer in the case, so ... not relevant?

I'm a little confused tbh. Vituscka signed an agreement, so maybe the texts are still required. Sara Nathan (Melissa Nathan's siter) was able to get out because she hadn't agreed to or signed anything yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

Why would DM not be paying his legal fees?

I don't know but that would explain why he switched to a firm that normally would not be hired by a publication of DM's size. And DM has a longstanding relationship with Ballard Spahr. Perhaps his admissions in his affidavit made DM decide it was time to distance itself, perhaps there is concern that if Freedman's communications with him are discovered/made public, it would be better for him to have independent counsel.

If DM *is* still paying, it makes the move extremely weird, borderline nonsensical.

I wonder if V did something to violate his contract with daily mail and so they are no longer indemnifying him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A BaldoniFiles thread on this topic (not linking here because I know Baldoni supporters don't like that sub) notes that Vituscka was supposed to produce his Freedman texts on Monday, June 23rd hahaha. It's all happening at once, the amended complaint, the lively dep (maybe not), and Vituscka.

I'd be surprised if those Vituscka texts were still compelled. I guess that Vituscka made the deal in order to get out of producing additional information though, so maybe still is relevant? But that other info I thought had to do with Sloane's "statement" about assault and she's no longer in the case, so ... not relevant?

I'm a little confused tbh. Vituscka signed an agreement, so maybe the texts are still required. Sara Nathan (Melissa Nathan's siter) was able to get out because she hadn't agreed to or signed anything yet.

I’ve never heard of that sub. Not sure what you mean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A BaldoniFiles thread on this topic (not linking here because I know Baldoni supporters don't like that sub) notes that Vituscka was supposed to produce his Freedman texts on Monday, June 23rd hahaha. It's all happening at once, the amended complaint, the lively dep (maybe not), and Vituscka.

I'd be surprised if those Vituscka texts were still compelled. I guess that Vituscka made the deal in order to get out of producing additional information though, so maybe still is relevant? But that other info I thought had to do with Sloane's "statement" about assault and she's no longer in the case, so ... not relevant?

I'm a little confused tbh. Vituscka signed an agreement, so maybe the texts are still required. Sara Nathan (Melissa Nathan's siter) was able to get out because she hadn't agreed to or signed anything yet.

Responding to myself to note that to me, it had seemed that by offering up his texts with Freedman before to Sloane's attorneys to get out of producing more materials, Vituscka was going a bit rogue against Baldoni and Freedman, potentially implicating Freedman in shady operations in a way that wouldn't really reflect badly on Vituscka, but might reflect badly on Freedman (i.e., implicating that Freedman might have been part of the smear, maybe -- though I recognize that's a stretch).

By bringing in Geragos as his new attorneys, the chances of that happening seem smaller to me now. Geragos isn't going to take part in selling out Freedman. They work together. They would defend one another.

Another possibility is that Vituscka agreed to produce his texts with Freedman before because he hardly had anything and they were a nothingburger, so it wouldn't give Gottlieb any real meat to work with. In which case, I don't really understand the switch.

[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.

DP and also an attorney and agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A BaldoniFiles thread on this topic (not linking here because I know Baldoni supporters don't like that sub) notes that Vituscka was supposed to produce his Freedman texts on Monday, June 23rd hahaha. It's all happening at once, the amended complaint, the lively dep (maybe not), and Vituscka.

I'd be surprised if those Vituscka texts were still compelled. I guess that Vituscka made the deal in order to get out of producing additional information though, so maybe still is relevant? But that other info I thought had to do with Sloane's "statement" about assault and she's no longer in the case, so ... not relevant?

I'm a little confused tbh. Vituscka signed an agreement, so maybe the texts are still required. Sara Nathan (Melissa Nathan's siter) was able to get out because she hadn't agreed to or signed anything yet.

Responding to myself to note that to me, it had seemed that by offering up his texts with Freedman before to Sloane's attorneys to get out of producing more materials, Vituscka was going a bit rogue against Baldoni and Freedman, potentially implicating Freedman in shady operations in a way that wouldn't really reflect badly on Vituscka, but might reflect badly on Freedman (i.e., implicating that Freedman might have been part of the smear, maybe -- though I recognize that's a stretch).

By bringing in Geragos as his new attorneys, the chances of that happening seem smaller to me now. Geragos isn't going to take part in selling out Freedman. They work together. They would defend one another.

Another possibility is that Vituscka agreed to produce his texts with Freedman before because he hardly had anything and they were a nothingburger, so it wouldn't give Gottlieb any real meat to work with. In which case, I don't really understand the switch.

What does that mean? Go rogue? This guy is a journalist, no? What does he owe anyone?

And are people implying he is somehow being captured by freedman because he is hiring someone from the Garagos firm?