Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

Again a lot of allegations from lying from the person supporting the parties that filed sham litigation to get early access to documents.

I don’t care about the amended complaint because the defamation claim was the main one. I’m also going to wait a few weeks and see what, if any, other legal measures are taken. This isn’t a reality show and we aren’t owed 24/7 updates on this litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

[Anonymous]

If Garofalo scores a win, I wonder if it'll be because Garofalo is a better writer or if Liman secretly despises Freedman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

Again a lot of allegations from lying from the person supporting the parties that filed sham litigation to get early access to documents.

I don’t care about the amended complaint because the defamation claim was the main one. I’m also going to wait a few weeks and see what, if any, other legal measures are taken. This isn’t a reality show and we aren’t owed 24/7 updates on this litigation.

Look, just tell that to your guy, not to me. “You don’t need to get on TV and announce a plan after every major event!” I almost noted that in my response above but I thought it was too obvious.

However, if Freedman *does* get on TV and announce a plan, and then proceeds to do the exact opposite of that plan, it is appropriate to call his announcement on TV a lie. Words have meaning and saying you will do one thing and then doing NOT that thing is lying. 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

Yes this seems well written and (though I didn't read the cases) well sourced. I'm interested to see how Gottlieb's team responds. I support Lively but haven't really understood the issues behind this subpoena from the start, though I acknowledge that it seems shady if you are suing John Does to avoid giving notice to the real targets of your lawsuit. I am just happy that issue is finally being brought in front of the court in a proper way instead of being sat on for additional months and buried haplessly in a footnote in a nearly non-related filing. Freedman didn't seem to understand how to handle it but it seems to me like Garofalo does. Good for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

Again a lot of allegations from lying from the person supporting the parties that filed sham litigation to get early access to documents.

I don’t care about the amended complaint because the defamation claim was the main one. I’m also going to wait a few weeks and see what, if any, other legal measures are taken. This isn’t a reality show and we aren’t owed 24/7 updates on this litigation.

Look, just tell that to your guy, not to me. “You don’t need to get on TV and announce a plan after every major event!” I almost noted that in my response above but I thought it was too obvious.

However, if Freedman *does* get on TV and announce a plan, and then proceeds to do the exact opposite of that plan, it is appropriate to call his announcement on TV a lie. Words have meaning and saying you will do one thing and then doing NOT that thing is lying. 🤷‍♀️

I don't like Freedman but not necessarily a lie. It appears he read the decision wrong and at first thought it included the tortious interference with economic advantage when in fact it was just the contract claims and the contracts likely do not support the claims. Sounds like he eventually conferred with his team and realized it wasn't worth it.

Fair to say it was another example of him promising and not delivering. The statement from yesterday about generically looking at all the options was good. He simply should have made a statement like that the day of the decision instead of grandstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

Yes this seems well written and (though I didn't read the cases) well sourced. I'm interested to see how Gottlieb's team responds. I support Lively but haven't really understood the issues behind this subpoena from the start, though I acknowledge that it seems shady if you are suing John Does to avoid giving notice to the real targets of your lawsuit. I am just happy that issue is finally being brought in front of the court in a proper way instead of being sat on for additional months and buried haplessly in a footnote in a nearly non-related filing. Freedman didn't seem to understand how to handle it but it seems to me like Garofalo does. Good for her.

Responding to self in noting that one thing missing from Garofalo's motion is the email reflecting the correspondence and negotiations between the attorneys about Garofalo's subpoena. All we know about the timing is that Garofalo served her subpoena seeking documents on April 21, 2025 (the same day as the Hollywood Reporter article where Gottlieb said their subpoena was aboveboard and fine). So, for example, this subpoena was served two months later than the subpoena that was served on Case and Koslow that was at issue in yesterday's hearing -- that Case and Koslow subpoena was served on February 28, 2025. So Bender and Breed went through an additional two months of negotiations together -- four total rather than the two at issue here -- before Bender served a motion to compel when Breed suddenly raised new objections to the dates and group text production at the last minute.

I suspect that's the reason Garofalo didn't attach the normal email showing negotiations between the parties -- there had been less time to negotiate over the issues as the other MTCs that had come before the court since she only issued the subpoena two months ago. I don't fault her at all for filing the MTC (at least, not before seeing what the email negotiations look like), because Garofalo certainly wants and seems entitled to these materials. I also think it was smart to file this MTC right after Lively got a win on a MTC other third party materials. But, it's not crazy that a third party has not produced materials yet, two months after a subpoena is issued, before the date for substantial discovery has happened, especially if many of those same materials were requested from a party in the case, imho. I think Garofalo is perhaps not being as forthright as she could be by not producing the customary email of negotiations (I bet we will see that in VanZan's response) and thus that she is hiding the ball a little about the timing and the content of the negotiations because those facts aren't that good for her.

[Anonymous]

Oof, that rabid BL supporter obsessed with Friedman cannot possibly be a mentally stable individual. I'm all for people having a different perspective based on their experiences, background or what they value but the responses are another level. I've narrowed it down to someone who has been in Friedman's orbit and holds a massive grudge, someone who needs mental health intervention, someone compensated for their "organic" participation or a combination of the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oof, that rabid BL supporter obsessed with Friedman cannot possibly be a mentally stable individual. I'm all for people having a different perspective based on their experiences, background or what they value but the responses are another level. I've narrowed it down to someone who has been in Friedman's orbit and holds a massive grudge, someone who needs mental health intervention, someone compensated for their "organic" participation or a combination of the above.

You seem nice.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

Again a lot of allegations from lying from the person supporting the parties that filed sham litigation to get early access to documents.

I don’t care about the amended complaint because the defamation claim was the main one. I’m also going to wait a few weeks and see what, if any, other legal measures are taken. This isn’t a reality show and we aren’t owed 24/7 updates on this litigation.

Look, just tell that to your guy, not to me. “You don’t need to get on TV and announce a plan after every major event!” I almost noted that in my response above but I thought it was too obvious.

However, if Freedman *does* get on TV and announce a plan, and then proceeds to do the exact opposite of that plan, it is appropriate to call his announcement on TV a lie. Words have meaning and saying you will do one thing and then doing NOT that thing is lying. 🤷‍♀️

A change in strategy isn’t a lie. Strategy is always client driven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oof, that rabid BL supporter obsessed with Friedman cannot possibly be a mentally stable individual. I'm all for people having a different perspective based on their experiences, background or what they value but the responses are another level. I've narrowed it down to someone who has been in Friedman's orbit and holds a massive grudge, someone who needs mental health intervention, someone compensated for their "organic" participation or a combination of the above.

You seem nice.

Dp, but agree entirely. It’s over the top and has been for months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

Yes this seems well written and (though I didn't read the cases) well sourced. I'm interested to see how Gottlieb's team responds. I support Lively but haven't really understood the issues behind this subpoena from the start, though I acknowledge that it seems shady if you are suing John Does to avoid giving notice to the real targets of your lawsuit. I am just happy that issue is finally being brought in front of the court in a proper way instead of being sat on for additional months and buried haplessly in a footnote in a nearly non-related filing. Freedman didn't seem to understand how to handle it but it seems to me like Garofalo does. Good for her.

Responding to self in noting that one thing missing from Garofalo's motion is the email reflecting the correspondence and negotiations between the attorneys about Garofalo's subpoena. All we know about the timing is that Garofalo served her subpoena seeking documents on April 21, 2025 (the same day as the Hollywood Reporter article where Gottlieb said their subpoena was aboveboard and fine). So, for example, this subpoena was served two months later than the subpoena that was served on Case and Koslow that was at issue in yesterday's hearing -- that Case and Koslow subpoena was served on February 28, 2025. So Bender and Breed went through an additional two months of negotiations together -- four total rather than the two at issue here -- before Bender served a motion to compel when Breed suddenly raised new objections to the dates and group text production at the last minute.

I suspect that's the reason Garofalo didn't attach the normal email showing negotiations between the parties -- there had been less time to negotiate over the issues as the other MTCs that had come before the court since she only issued the subpoena two months ago. I don't fault her at all for filing the MTC (at least, not before seeing what the email negotiations look like), because Garofalo certainly wants and seems entitled to these materials. I also think it was smart to file this MTC right after Lively got a win on a MTC other third party materials. But, it's not crazy that a third party has not produced materials yet, two months after a subpoena is issued, before the date for substantial discovery has happened, especially if many of those same materials were requested from a party in the case, imho. I think Garofalo is perhaps not being as forthright as she could be by not producing the customary email of negotiations (I bet we will see that in VanZan's response) and thus that she is hiding the ball a little about the timing and the content of the negotiations because those facts aren't that good for her.

The mental gymnastics required to get around the fact the Lively defendants and Jones have been playing hide the ball with the Van Zan subpoena since day one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oof, that rabid BL supporter obsessed with Friedman cannot possibly be a mentally stable individual. I'm all for people having a different perspective based on their experiences, background or what they value but the responses are another level. I've narrowed it down to someone who has been in Friedman's orbit and holds a massive grudge, someone who needs mental health intervention, someone compensated for their "organic" participation or a combination of the above.

You seem nice.

Dp, but agree entirely. It’s over the top and has been for months.

Sorry, just to clarify, I agree with first poster that the Freedman poster is over the top and has been for months. I wasn’t responding to the you seem nice comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

This is excellent, thank you for putting it together.

Freedman looks very out of the loop on this -- no reply until Tuesday and then his response seems to have factual errors that will come back to bite him. Either he'll finally read the decision closely enough to understand they cannot replead everything he says he's going to, OR he'll replead it all and get bench slapped for violating the judge's order.

Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!

DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.

Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).

As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.

This is not a "totally standard" case. Have you worked on cases that produced 800+ threads on DCUM? That spawned a half dozen subreddits dedicated just to following the minutia of the case? Where legal and celebrity podcasts issued "special reports" when the judged handed down a decision on MTDs? This is an unusual case and cannot be handled the "standard" way. Previously this has actually benefitted Freedman, who has a style tailor made for this kind of case, and hurt Lively, whose lawyers are clearly not used to this kind of coverage and scrutiny. But this week was a role reversal as Freedman got caught flat footed and Lively's team made hay with this decision.

And actually Freedman's statement about what claims they plan to refile does matter from a PR perspective. As soon as he stated there were four claims they planned to refile, Reddit and the Tik tokkers who follow the case immediately jumped all over it, figuring out which ones he meant since, of course, it was widely reported on Monday (correctly) that Judge Liman's decision only left two claims that could be refiled in an amended complaint. Now a lot of JB fans believe he actually has four, that the mainstream media got it wrong on Monday (they didn't), and that Justin will shortly be refiling his complain with four claims. If he files with only two, this will create a news story about how Freedman lied or got it wrong. If he refiles with four, the judge will respond very negatively (the judge's order is very clear on which claims he may refile) and that will create a news cycle about that.

So actually Freedman has guaranteed a negative news cycle surrounding the amended complaint when it gets filed. That's not smart. You'd think given that he had overnight to review the judge's decision, he wouldn't have made such a glaring error in their one official statement to the press.

I’m the PP and I’m not sure where I said that it’s a ‘standard’ case. In fact I mentioned that in the cases I was referring to, crisis PR was hired. So not standard. And yes, I’ve worked on cases that were the subject of VERY active news cycles, one of them went on for several years. A close colleague handles litigations involving a person we all know who is in the news daily.

I’m not quite sure I understand the obsession with freedman here and the details of his statement. When I first started working around PR, I assumed detailed statements made sense. But then I learned, no one cares or remembers much other than the overall gist. And most people do not care about the lawyers. I wish!

Just re-upping the above post from two weeks ago after Freedman went on TMZ and said he had 4 claims to replead for the amended complaint, and a DP (if you "click to show earlier quotes") said that Freedman had just guaranteed himself a negative news cycle when the amended complaint was due. Granted, that PP did not actually even imagine Freedman would have the effrontery not to file an amended complaint at all, but the jist of the issue still stands: Liman and various tiktokers said there were 2 claims to replead; Freedman said he will replead 4, so everyone was on high alert for what got plead. A different PP suggests that folks don't notice or remember what the lawyers say to the press.

So what got plead was nothing. I think people noticed. Freedman has Baldoni supporters so hyped up they notice everything (except the ones who are giving up or tuning out because of all the recent losses). Most of the Baldoni supporters have left this thread, I think sort of unable to deal with the losing. Yesterday on the Reddit subs it was almost like after the MTD was issued.

People have left the thread because of your endless posts, no one wants to engage with the crazy.

Nah, my posts haven't changed, man. A lot of you guys have lost your spirit after all these losses. I bet when you guys get a win there will be an uptick. I just think maybe reality is starting to hit you.

lol, look how many more of you are in here now that this VanZan MTC dropped! It's given you new life!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

Yes this seems well written and (though I didn't read the cases) well sourced. I'm interested to see how Gottlieb's team responds. I support Lively but haven't really understood the issues behind this subpoena from the start, though I acknowledge that it seems shady if you are suing John Does to avoid giving notice to the real targets of your lawsuit. I am just happy that issue is finally being brought in front of the court in a proper way instead of being sat on for additional months and buried haplessly in a footnote in a nearly non-related filing. Freedman didn't seem to understand how to handle it but it seems to me like Garofalo does. Good for her.

Responding to self in noting that one thing missing from Garofalo's motion is the email reflecting the correspondence and negotiations between the attorneys about Garofalo's subpoena. All we know about the timing is that Garofalo served her subpoena seeking documents on April 21, 2025 (the same day as the Hollywood Reporter article where Gottlieb said their subpoena was aboveboard and fine). So, for example, this subpoena was served two months later than the subpoena that was served on Case and Koslow that was at issue in yesterday's hearing -- that Case and Koslow subpoena was served on February 28, 2025. So Bender and Breed went through an additional two months of negotiations together -- four total rather than the two at issue here -- before Bender served a motion to compel when Breed suddenly raised new objections to the dates and group text production at the last minute.

I suspect that's the reason Garofalo didn't attach the normal email showing negotiations between the parties -- there had been less time to negotiate over the issues as the other MTCs that had come before the court since she only issued the subpoena two months ago. I don't fault her at all for filing the MTC (at least, not before seeing what the email negotiations look like), because Garofalo certainly wants and seems entitled to these materials. I also think it was smart to file this MTC right after Lively got a win on a MTC other third party materials. But, it's not crazy that a third party has not produced materials yet, two months after a subpoena is issued, before the date for substantial discovery has happened, especially if many of those same materials were requested from a party in the case, imho. I think Garofalo is perhaps not being as forthright as she could be by not producing the customary email of negotiations (I bet we will see that in VanZan's response) and thus that she is hiding the ball a little about the timing and the content of the negotiations because those facts aren't that good for her.

The mental gymnastics required to get around the fact the Lively defendants and Jones have been playing hide the ball with the Van Zan subpoena since day one.

Yeah this. I defend Lively at times, but this... the literal whole point of the VanZan bs was so they could say "pursuant to a lawful subpoena blah blah blah." It was not a good faith effort to discover the identity of an unknown Doe. It exists solely to have a piece of paper o point to, so there should be no question of being ready to present it when asked! And the lawyers on that side are generally competent so it's bizarre. Also, who leaked it to the press and why on earth would they do that. Self own?