Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I hereby claim this thread and all its riches for the honor and glory of myself and my descendants.

/s/ Arlington mom

[Anonymous]

NAG actually getting things a bit wrong again here on the amended complaint, with her first suggestion for the lack of a filing being that the parties might have mutually agreed to extend out the deadline (without getting the court's permission) - no. The court set a deadline and the parties can't just flout that, especially this judge. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7519526658060209422

NAG also ranted yesterday about the Bezos wedding in Venice and how crazy it seemed to normal people like us who have no money and honestly that's a bit rich coming from someone filming from the inside of her custom made closet haha so maybe I myself am starting to turn on NAG a little bit, she has maybe been less useful and balanced than is helpful from my perspective, though sometimes she does provide helpful perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinated people are so worked up at the lack of an amended complaint. It seems like a totally rational decision to me. They only had two claims they could make at this point, and neither were worth a lot of money (because the movie made a ton of money) and would have been hard to prove. Both are contract-based and I suspect that the contracts do not support the claims anyway, which is why they didn't include the contract or terms in their original complaint.

So the case is back to being about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, which it always was? If Baldoni is innocent of these, that should come out in discovery. I don't quite understand why people are so upset. Baldoni's claims against Lively and others were always really weak and were clearly intended largely to change the narrative and get Baldoni's perspective on what happened out in public, something it's harder to do when just acting as a defendant.

Also I feel pretty confident that either Lively showed for her deposition or Baldoni's side asked for a reschedule. If Lively was a no show or tried to reschedule, Freedman would be all over the news with that.

I agree that Freedman likely didn’t file an amended complaint because the contracts supporting them weren’t strong enough to make their claims — they may not have had any signed K from Lively and WME Ks supposedly allow either party to leave for no reason. I do then find it weird that Freedman went on TV and said of COURSE they would be refilling (4 claims haha). He is such a liar but Baldoni supporters don’t care.

I also think it’s weird that no side has come out to brag, either about the dep/lack of dep, or about the lack of amended complaint. This does make me wonder whether they’re seriously discussing settlement. But Lively’s side might also just be prepping for today’s hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NAG actually getting things a bit wrong again here on the amended complaint, with her first suggestion for the lack of a filing being that the parties might have mutually agreed to extend out the deadline (without getting the court's permission) - no. The court set a deadline and the parties can't just flout that, especially this judge. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7519526658060209422

NAG also ranted yesterday about the Bezos wedding in Venice and how crazy it seemed to normal people like us who have no money and honestly that's a bit rich coming from someone filming from the inside of her custom made closet haha so maybe I myself am starting to turn on NAG a little bit, she has maybe been less useful and balanced than is helpful from my perspective, though sometimes she does provide helpful perspective.

The issue with NAG is she's just a regular person. Yes, she's a lawyer and she's right on a lot of the legal stuff. But she's not some expert in these sorts of cases nor does she have any background representing celebs or working on high profile harassment or defamation cases. That's not a slam -- most people don't. But she should really stick to explaining the law, helping non-lawyers understand the process and the decisions. When she starts to weigh in on strategy, what she thinks will happen, or pass judgment on the quality of the lawyering, she tends to get it wrong because she's not really an expert on any of those things. She does a good job explaining federal court procedure and the underlying legal concepts for a lay person, she should stick with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAG actually getting things a bit wrong again here on the amended complaint, with her first suggestion for the lack of a filing being that the parties might have mutually agreed to extend out the deadline (without getting the court's permission) - no. The court set a deadline and the parties can't just flout that, especially this judge. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7519526658060209422

NAG also ranted yesterday about the Bezos wedding in Venice and how crazy it seemed to normal people like us who have no money and honestly that's a bit rich coming from someone filming from the inside of her custom made closet haha so maybe I myself am starting to turn on NAG a little bit, she has maybe been less useful and balanced than is helpful from my perspective, though sometimes she does provide helpful perspective.

The issue with NAG is she's just a regular person. Yes, she's a lawyer and she's right on a lot of the legal stuff. But she's not some expert in these sorts of cases nor does she have any background representing celebs or working on high profile harassment or defamation cases. That's not a slam -- most people don't. But she should really stick to explaining the law, helping non-lawyers understand the process and the decisions. When she starts to weigh in on strategy, what she thinks will happen, or pass judgment on the quality of the lawyering, she tends to get it wrong because she's not really an expert on any of those things. She does a good job explaining federal court procedure and the underlying legal concepts for a lay person, she should stick with that.

Mostly agree. But here, she even got the federal court procedure part wrong. You can't just mutually agree with co-counsel to extend a SAC filing deadline without permission of the court, which was her first suggestion of what had happened here ha.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

Insane that you released this statement "through a YouTube personality Rob Zambrano." Like it's one thing to go through TMZ or Daily Mail -- at least those are actual journalistic enterprises, even if they are tabloids. But going through one of these YouTubers is sketchy and indicates he wanted zero follow up questions or even potential commentary on the statement. You know like "Freedman refused to tell TMZ why he had previously claimed they would be amending their complaint, nor would he provide any comment on Lively's deposition that occurred yesterday."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAG actually getting things a bit wrong again here on the amended complaint, with her first suggestion for the lack of a filing being that the parties might have mutually agreed to extend out the deadline (without getting the court's permission) - no. The court set a deadline and the parties can't just flout that, especially this judge. https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7519526658060209422

NAG also ranted yesterday about the Bezos wedding in Venice and how crazy it seemed to normal people like us who have no money and honestly that's a bit rich coming from someone filming from the inside of her custom made closet haha so maybe I myself am starting to turn on NAG a little bit, she has maybe been less useful and balanced than is helpful from my perspective, though sometimes she does provide helpful perspective.

The issue with NAG is she's just a regular person. Yes, she's a lawyer and she's right on a lot of the legal stuff. But she's not some expert in these sorts of cases nor does she have any background representing celebs or working on high profile harassment or defamation cases. That's not a slam -- most people don't. But she should really stick to explaining the law, helping non-lawyers understand the process and the decisions. When she starts to weigh in on strategy, what she thinks will happen, or pass judgment on the quality of the lawyering, she tends to get it wrong because she's not really an expert on any of those things. She does a good job explaining federal court procedure and the underlying legal concepts for a lay person, she should stick with that.

Mostly agree. But here, she even got the federal court procedure part wrong. You can't just mutually agree with co-counsel to extend a SAC filing deadline without permission of the court, which was her first suggestion of what had happened here ha.

PP here and yeah, that was super weird. I just saw another lawyer TikToker who said the same thing today. I think it's just wishful thinking from people who assumed that they would amend as they said they would.

I've also seen a number of commentators say that they feel certain Freedman has evidence that he has not yet disclosed publicly. I think this is very wishful thinking and highly unlikely. It might be hard to admit to yourself, but I think some people got taken in by his claims about Taylor Swift (which I personally believe to have been 100% made up at this point) and really thought he was sitting on some serious evidence of wrongdoing by Lively, either during the movie or in the litigation. I think the reality is that it was all bluster to try and force a settlement and they underestimated Lively's willingness to weather the bad press and move forward with her claims.

I also underestimated Lively's willingness on that front (I thought for sure this thing would settle prior to depositions) but I never fully trusted Freedman because the complaint/timeline/website, which I read all of, was really weak and in many instances actually seems to back up Lively's claims. I think if you only listen to his interviews, you think they're doing great. But legally, they've been in a terrible position since December and that's really never changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

Insane that you released this statement "through a YouTube personality Rob Zambrano." Like it's one thing to go through TMZ or Daily Mail -- at least those are actual journalistic enterprises, even if they are tabloids. But going through one of these YouTubers is sketchy and indicates he wanted zero follow up questions or even potential commentary on the statement. You know like "Freedman refused to tell TMZ why he had previously claimed they would be amending their complaint, nor would he provide any comment on Lively's deposition that occurred yesterday."

Given that there hasn't been much from the Daily Mail over the last week since Vituscka changed counsel (though Vituscka is still running stories and still works there), I wondered whether maybe Freedman isn't able to feed them stories the way he used to. Even if Vituscka's counsel is now more openly friendly to Freedman, maybe the paper (or even Freedman?) themselves have put up some walls to prevent getting accused of passing info and smearing. Wondering if Freedman has now burned the Daily Mail bridge as a conduit for releasing info from his perspective about the case, but not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

I hope they are going to be appealing the decision with respect to the defamation claims, maybe a motion for reconsideration first? That makes far more sense than pursing the claims they were allowed to replead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

Insane that you released this statement "through a YouTube personality Rob Zambrano." Like it's one thing to go through TMZ or Daily Mail -- at least those are actual journalistic enterprises, even if they are tabloids. But going through one of these YouTubers is sketchy and indicates he wanted zero follow up questions or even potential commentary on the statement. You know like "Freedman refused to tell TMZ why he had previously claimed they would be amending their complaint, nor would he provide any comment on Lively's deposition that occurred yesterday."

Given that there hasn't been much from the Daily Mail over the last week since Vituscka changed counsel (though Vituscka is still running stories and still works there), I wondered whether maybe Freedman isn't able to feed them stories the way he used to. Even if Vituscka's counsel is now more openly friendly to Freedman, maybe the paper (or even Freedman?) themselves have put up some walls to prevent getting accused of passing info and smearing. Wondering if Freedman has now burned the Daily Mail bridge as a conduit for releasing info from his perspective about the case, but not sure.

Neither side has had much to say to the press over the past week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

Insane that you released this statement "through a YouTube personality Rob Zambrano." Like it's one thing to go through TMZ or Daily Mail -- at least those are actual journalistic enterprises, even if they are tabloids. But going through one of these YouTubers is sketchy and indicates he wanted zero follow up questions or even potential commentary on the statement. You know like "Freedman refused to tell TMZ why he had previously claimed they would be amending their complaint, nor would he provide any comment on Lively's deposition that occurred yesterday."

Given that there hasn't been much from the Daily Mail over the last week since Vituscka changed counsel (though Vituscka is still running stories and still works there), I wondered whether maybe Freedman isn't able to feed them stories the way he used to. Even if Vituscka's counsel is now more openly friendly to Freedman, maybe the paper (or even Freedman?) themselves have put up some walls to prevent getting accused of passing info and smearing. Wondering if Freedman has now burned the Daily Mail bridge as a conduit for releasing info from his perspective about the case, but not sure.

Neither side has had much to say to the press over the past week.

Well, this Freedman statement released with no identifying marks to Youtuber Rob Zambrano of Popcorn Planet is weird, even coming from Bryan Freedman.

And it's in direct contradiction to what Freedman said on TMZ two weeks ago, where the path was all flags forward (in fact more flags than he even really had) on the amended complaint.

So Freedman is an absolute liar and no one should trust a single thing he says. I've been saying this for a while, but hopefully this is clear to others now. And if your response is, "this issue doesn't even matter, so what if he changed his mind?" If you can't trust him to understand his claims and his plan moving forward when he tells you what that is going to be -- if he feels free to make statements that he later reconsiders and takes back -- how can you trust that what he is *ever* saying is the truth, and not just some hastily concocted lie to get you on his side for now?

[Anonymous]

So far this hearing is going GREAT! Multiple exclamations of "You're late, you guys are late!" followed by someone joining and saying "What the hell? Oh, mute. I can't see anything" etc etc. Now silence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So far this hearing is going GREAT! Multiple exclamations of "You're late, you guys are late!" followed by someone joining and saying "What the hell? Oh, mute. I can't see anything" etc etc. Now silence.

Please touch grass.

[Anonymous]

Please post play by play!