Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

Once again, your recounting of events is ahistorical. I don't remember anyone here doing that. Yet you always love claiming, "Ha, I said this about the lawsuit, but then Justin supporters said THAT," and we're just like, no, that's not a thing that happened.

I don’t think this motion was even discussed on this thread.

Just another case of Baldoni supporters believing whatever tf they want to despite the actual facts, as already discussed on the last page. Very on brand.

You frequently confuse threads here with threads on Reddit, one can only guess as to why.

The person who discussed this issue with me here is discussing it more in the comment above this, and also discussed the discussion on the page before this. Try to keep up if you can. I can hear myself being annoying rn, but I don’t care because I can also hear you being annoying. 🤷‍♀️

That one person is not a Baldoni supporter
and is literally one person. The motion was barely mentioned on this thread. So once again, living in your own reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

Once again, your recounting of events is ahistorical. I don't remember anyone here doing that. Yet you always love claiming, "Ha, I said this about the lawsuit, but then Justin supporters said THAT," and we're just like, no, that's not a thing that happened.

I don’t think this motion was even discussed on this thread.

Just another case of Baldoni supporters believing whatever tf they want to despite the actual facts, as already discussed on the last page. Very on brand.

You frequently confuse threads here with threads on Reddit, one can only guess as to why.

The person who discussed this issue with me here is discussing it more in the comment above this, and also discussed the discussion on the page before this. Try to keep up if you can. I can hear myself being annoying rn, but I don’t care because I can also hear you being annoying. 🤷‍♀️

Hmm I remember you going off on the Van Zan motion to compel for literally pages. But crickets from you on that. Based on your previous posts, shouldn’t we be demanding an apology or some such

Nope, that wasn’t me actually. I have always said that I’m not really that familiar with the potential issues/problems behind the subpoena and would be interested in seeing what happened with it. But that if Freedman really thought it was a problem, he really should raise it as soon as possible (before it becomes moot, as might happen if Abel’s claims get dismissed), and certainly should do better then raising it in an effing footnote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

Once again, your recounting of events is ahistorical. I don't remember anyone here doing that. Yet you always love claiming, "Ha, I said this about the lawsuit, but then Justin supporters said THAT," and we're just like, no, that's not a thing that happened.

I don’t think this motion was even discussed on this thread.

Just another case of Baldoni supporters believing whatever tf they want to despite the actual facts, as already discussed on the last page. Very on brand.

You frequently confuse threads here with threads on Reddit, one can only guess as to why.

The person who discussed this issue with me here is discussing it more in the comment above this, and also discussed the discussion on the page before this. Try to keep up if you can. I can hear myself being annoying rn, but I don’t care because I can also hear you being annoying. 🤷‍♀️

That one person is not a Baldoni supporter and is literally one person. The motion was barely mentioned on this thread. So once again, living in your own reality.

It’s not my problem if you can’t be bothered to weigh in on the filings that get discussed here. Some of us did (and still are) so I feel pretty good about my reality, especially as compared to the reality of Baldoni supporters who thought their boy had $400M+ in claims which went *poof* overnight because Bryan Freedman prefers threatening and bullying people over the actual hard work of research and writing that go into drafting a legitimate legal complaint.

So if we are comparing realities that are built on ineffable hopes and dreams that dissipate completely when the truth comes along, I feel pretty good about mine, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Honestly it seems like the lawyers on here who support Baldoni stopped weighing in on almost every legal issue following their great embarrassment when Baldoni’s entire legal complaint was dismissed, and then follow up embarrassment two weeks later when Freedman didn’t even amend. So to say “hey we didn’t even say anything about those filings” is pretty rich. Sure, you’ll never be wrong again — that’s one way to do it! Congrats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

This seems weird. Can a nonbiased lawyer in here weigh in on whether this decision is unusual? I don't know why he should have to give up the names of his clients.

I was the PP who said I'd be shocked if Liman ruled for Lively here, and I disagree with the ruling. I'll try to give an unbiased take.

Wallace argues that a wide range of people, from private citizens to celebrities, hire him for crisis management and confidentiality is a core part of that. It is true as the other PP said that "relevance" for purposes of discovery is broader than what would be admissible at trial. I really didn't see the relevance at that time, but it was a little clearer in Lively's reply letter: they want to use the client list to comb social media and identify user accounts that may have seeded stories related to those clients that are similar to the ones against Lively. I guess it does meet the criteria for relevance, barely. Lively argues that having shown relevance, Wallace does not meet the burden for good cause for the PO as (in her view) he merely states his work is confidential and covered by NDAs. And Lively correctly points out that NDA is not the same as having actual privilege (like attorney-client privilege or spousal privilege).

I'd go Wallace's way on this, because I'd argue that the probative value of the information to Lively is merely speculative (she *thinks* she *might* find some pattern which *might* lead to further discovery on those user accounts that *might* lead to information relevant to her case), while the damage to Wallace's business would be grave. Wallace's entire business model is that what he does is untraceable (and it might be because he's sketchy, but the court can't assume that), so this could literally ruin his entire business model and I think that threat is very real. Liman essentially is on the other end of the spectrum from me and apparently agrees with Lively, that the potential value of the information to her outweighs the speculation that this could harm Wallace.

What Lively's attorneys usually do in this situation and what I think Wallace should have done is request leave to reply one more time with the letter reply already included. They should have gone harder on how harmful this would be to Wallace and had more caselaw showing that the burden on Wallace outweighs the value of the information to Lively. It was dumb of his attorneys to say that Street has already testified it didn't do what is alleged, because, of course that's what they would say. I did not get the point of including that at all.

The quality of lawyering from Wallace's attorneys has been much better than the Freedman side so it's surprising. My best guess is they felt like I did, that they'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule in their favor and thought their initial argument was strong enough, as I did. They may be wishing they had written another reply. Liman did say in the decision that Wallace didn't demonstrate an undue burden, so perhaps he would have been open hear more on that subject. I don't think Liman is a Lively shill or anything, he also did rule against Vanzan today and said they had to give their communications with Jones.

Great analysis, thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it seems like the lawyers on here who support Baldoni stopped weighing in on almost every legal issue following their great embarrassment when Baldoni’s entire legal complaint was dismissed, and then follow up embarrassment two weeks later when Freedman didn’t even amend. So to say “hey we didn’t even say anything about those filings” is pretty rich. Sure, you’ll never be wrong again — that’s one way to do it! Congrats!

That filing happened over Fourth of July week and some of us have lives. Happy to discuss the Van Zan ruling within you or if not you, the person who posted non stop about how embarrassing the motion was for WF defendants. Or the Swift motion. Or Blake’s postponing her depo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it seems like the lawyers on here who support Baldoni stopped weighing in on almost every legal issue following their great embarrassment when Baldoni’s entire legal complaint was dismissed, and then follow up embarrassment two weeks later when Freedman didn’t even amend. So to say “hey we didn’t even say anything about those filings” is pretty rich. Sure, you’ll never be wrong again — that’s one way to do it! Congrats!

That filing happened over Fourth of July week and some of us have lives. Happy to discuss the Van Zan ruling within you or if not you, the person who posted non stop about how embarrassing the motion was for WF defendants. Or the Swift motion. Or Blake’s postponing her depo.

So what you're saying is you're happy to discuss exactly three filings where Baldoni's lawyers don't entirely come off looking like unprepared crooks, even if they also occurred over the fourth of July week (depo), but you have no legal opinions to share on the hundreds of remaining legal filings in the case lol.

For example, did you happen to catch the CA judge musing on why Freedman and Garofalo didn't even bother to address the transfer issue in their joint filing? ("Indeed, Movant strangely did not respond to Respondent’s transfer arguments in the initial joint stipulation filing.") Oh, Your Honor, we also have many questions about wtf these lawyers are doing. But I am guessing from the above that you have nothing to say about this, or any other filing where Freedman and co. come off looking like idiots. Okay, NP. We'll make sure to sound the alarm for you when any of those particular three filings you mentioned come up here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it seems like the lawyers on here who support Baldoni stopped weighing in on almost every legal issue following their great embarrassment when Baldoni’s entire legal complaint was dismissed, and then follow up embarrassment two weeks later when Freedman didn’t even amend. So to say “hey we didn’t even say anything about those filings” is pretty rich. Sure, you’ll never be wrong again — that’s one way to do it! Congrats!

That filing happened over Fourth of July week and some of us have lives. Happy to discuss the Van Zan ruling within you or if not you, the person who posted non stop about how embarrassing the motion was for WF defendants. Or the Swift motion. Or Blake’s postponing her depo.

So what you're saying is you're happy to discuss exactly three filings where Baldoni's lawyers don't entirely come off looking like unprepared crooks, even if they also occurred over the fourth of July week (depo), but you have no legal opinions to share on the hundreds of remaining legal filings in the case lol.

For example, did you happen to catch the CA judge musing on why Freedman and Garofalo didn't even bother to address the transfer issue in their joint filing? ("Indeed, Movant strangely did not respond to Respondent’s transfer arguments in the initial joint stipulation filing.") Oh, Your Honor, we also have many questions about wtf these lawyers are doing. But I am guessing from the above that you have nothing to say about this, or any other filing where Freedman and co. come off looking like idiots. Okay, NP. We'll make sure to sound the alarm for you when any of those particular three filings you mentioned come up here.

My point is that the motion to dismiss was over a month ago and WF has had some success since then. I could have also mentioned the Swift textmotion Blake lost.

Baldoni supporters just choose, for the most part, not to engage with you and one or two of the other Lively supporters who don’t seem to live entirely in the real world and are unpleasant to boot. Why bother, and with that, I’m off to enjoy thus beautiful afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it seems like the lawyers on here who support Baldoni stopped weighing in on almost every legal issue following their great embarrassment when Baldoni’s entire legal complaint was dismissed, and then follow up embarrassment two weeks later when Freedman didn’t even amend. So to say “hey we didn’t even say anything about those filings” is pretty rich. Sure, you’ll never be wrong again — that’s one way to do it! Congrats!

That filing happened over Fourth of July week and some of us have lives. Happy to discuss the Van Zan ruling within you or if not you, the person who posted non stop about how embarrassing the motion was for WF defendants. Or the Swift motion. Or Blake’s postponing her depo.

So what you're saying is you're happy to discuss exactly three filings where Baldoni's lawyers don't entirely come off looking like unprepared crooks, even if they also occurred over the fourth of July week (depo), but you have no legal opinions to share on the hundreds of remaining legal filings in the case lol.

For example, did you happen to catch the CA judge musing on why Freedman and Garofalo didn't even bother to address the transfer issue in their joint filing? ("Indeed, Movant strangely did not respond to Respondent’s transfer arguments in the initial joint stipulation filing.") Oh, Your Honor, we also have many questions about wtf these lawyers are doing. But I am guessing from the above that you have nothing to say about this, or any other filing where Freedman and co. come off looking like idiots. Okay, NP. We'll make sure to sound the alarm for you when any of those particular three filings you mentioned come up here.

My point is that the motion to dismiss was over a month ago and WF has had some success since then. I could have also mentioned the Swift textmotion Blake lost.

Baldoni supporters just choose, for the most part, not to engage with you and one or two of the other Lively supporters who don’t seem to live entirely in the real world and are unpleasant to boot. Why bother, and with that, I’m off to enjoy thus beautiful afternoon.

It's true, we're really not going to convince one another. Our realities are too far apart from one another and we are just talking past each other every time we engage. That's why I mostly stopped participating here for a week. I have found it's the same on Reddit. There is nowhere to discuss the case where people will actually discuss the legal issues without their own viewpoint/ideology getting in the way of a real discussion. Maybe the Courts reddit sub -- I haven't tried that.

I will say, I did try to participate evenly and pleasantly here, literally for months, and was constantly assaulted with claims that I was a bot or a shill or getting paid or some insider. Which I am not. And most of my legal arguments turned out to be right, and those from Baldoni supporters turned out to be wrong.

So if you're mad that I'm "unpleasant" now, please look inward because I participated here literally for months with no insults until I got fed up with the constant attacks from your side. If it's helpful I can go find the posts where I said I'd start insulting too if the insults didn't stop. (Reader, the insults did not stop.) So I don't care anymore, and I will snark if I want to, because I've earned it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's compare:

Lively parties negotiate in good faith for 3 months over ROG responses with Baldoni parties, still don't get reasonable responses and get more and more delays, and finally submit their MTC to the judge, whereupon Baldoni supporters say further negotiation was needed.

Baldoni parties held a meet and confer with Lively parties on Wednesday, May 28 to discuss Lively's failure to provide the name of medical providers; two days later on Friday, Lively parties told Baldoni Lively was dropping her emotional distress claims and thereupon ensued the drama between dismissing with and without prejudice. Freedman emailed Gottlieb at 11:30 pm Saturday and 1am Sunday to resolve, and Gottlieb emailed back at 9:30 pm Sunday to say without prejudice and if you have problems let's resolve during our 4:30pm Monday meet and confer. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all, and immediately after which he filed his own Motion to Compel, which Baldoni supporters thought was pretty reasonable. (Freedman's motion was denied.)

Seems like folks are applying a double standard here, but ymmv.

All of these requests went out around the same time, which means Lively’s team had been dragging their feet on the medical records for three months before it all finally came to a head. Blake’s lawyers just write in a much more whiney woe is me kind of way because they’ve taken on the personality of their client but they haven’t turned over much either. BF said as much in replying to a past MTC.

Nah, Freedman was the only one turning ROG responses in late, if you will recall (as per prior letter motions filed complaining about it). Remember when Freedman asked for an extension on their ROG and RFP responses so they would be due in mid-May instead of April 14th, and the judge said no way, you haven't shown good cause? (See 4/10/25 order.) And then remember when, in late April, the Lively parties filed multiple MTC's because Freedman's team responded to the ROGs with absolute non-answers, like "In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time" but were willing to meet and confer, lol? Benson filed those Responses (late) on 4/18 and within 2 weeks after further unsuccessful meet and confer, Gottlieb filed their MTC on them by the end of the month. There is no evidence in the record that Lively's ROG or RFP responses have been late or so deliriously non-responsive. And if Lively's team answered the RFP for medical records documents with a flat no as Summer's letter indicates, why on earth did it take Freedman's team more than an entire month longer to complain about it, in late May instead of late April like Gottlieb managed? Seems like that's mismanagement on Freedman.

I can see how Freedman's delay tactics of "we'll give you a little bit more but no where near what you're entitled to" might tend to make negotiations seem possible and therefore could lead lawyers to keep negotiating until, like here, Gottlieb's team just gives up. But if Gottlieb gave a flat no to the medical records as indicated, then Freedman's team sat on that info for a month before forcing a quick weekend turnaround and ignored the subject altogether on the M&C call, seems like Freedman is operating in bad faith and for the media as per usual.

That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything.

But that was before the parties agreed on the ESI protocol. At the time, Lively's side was trying to get Freedman to agree to the protocol because they wanted all parties to begin producing documents and were also trying to get Freedman to agree to a proposed date of all parties first production, which he also would not due. While Lively had not begun producing docs before the ESI protocol was agreed to, and while I don't know for sure because I can't see the correspondence, the record strongly suggests to me that the Lively parties began producing around the date of the first production date they had teed up and tried to get Freedman to agree to (was it end of April? Early May? I can't remember). That's because they are building a record to complain about later given Freedman's lack of production, and will be comparing their own production against Baldoni's etc.

As you said, you don’t know. The fact is that from the beginning the lively parties have been more aggressive in filing motions, including frivolous ones like their motions for sanctions against everyone except Baldoni for daring to sue them. That doesn’t mean they’ve been more cooperative.

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from the clues in the party email communications as someone who deals with discovery disputes all the time. Lively wouldn't have been trying to get Freedman to agree to a production date if they weren't going to be ready to produce themselves; they would have let Freedman draw it out. Gottlieb etc. have been acting like they're carefully building a record that they can reference when they complain about it later. That's my prediction here -- that at some point in early July or so we'll see another MTC complaining that Freedman hasn't provided the requisite documents responsive to the requests as required by the CMO.

I'm not sure Freedman's team of a few lawyers is really keeping up with Lively's on getting the ROG/RFP responses in on time, having them actually be responsive, reviewing Lively's responses to same, and actually providing the agreed upon materials. Lively's team probably has dozens of associates and partners working on this between all the firms, but Freedman seems to just have four or five; I'm sure Freedman has far fewer lawyers (and they only have the Freedman firm and Meister Seelig) and yet they have just as much if not more to do. I suspect they're not keeping up.

To me the purpose of the sanctions motions are to emphasize the paucity of evidence on the claims at issue, emphasize Freedman hasn't amended the complaint as promised, and so build the record that dismissal of the claims at issue in those motions should be granted with prejudice. We'll see if it pans out or not, but it does give the judge a full record to work with.

Oh fascinating. /s

Is this litigator mom? Or Yale Law mom? Or just little old Arlington mom? Or maybe you’re fact checker to multiple publications mom?

When is your contract up?

Last time y’all tried to figure out who was who over here we lured out your “they’re tracking our IP addresses!” lady. I’d worry about what other oddballs you’ve got over there, personally.

Recap of this week:

1. Lively drops her emotional distress claims. Lively can’t claim those monetary damages, but also Freedman doesn’t get to use her doctors to say she has various mental health issues as happened with Amber Heard. Freedman’s motion to compel these records is denied.

2. Two additional amicus briefs supporting Lively are filed including one on the constitutionality of 47.1 and another on DARVO tactics used by abusers (consistent with filing harassing defamation claims).

3. Vituscka files declaration clarifying Sloane didn’t say Baldoni sexually assaulted or harassed Lively, potentially killing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Also agrees to fork over 6 months of communications with Freedman. It’s like a Reverse Swift, without the struck pleadings!

4. Jed Wallace asks again if he can please just take his ball and go home. 🙏 Decision pending.

5. Liman says Jones gets to keep her tech investigation team’s communications privileged and his footnote makes clear that he has seen Freedman’s argument that the subpoena creates a crime fraud exemption and rejects it here.

6. Baldoni finally gets an amicus! Oh wait -

That was sarcastic. We know who’s over here.

And you were the one who set up the ‘Baldoni fans are nuts and think we’re tracking them!’ by pretending to be a pro JB poster who was crazy. Sometimes you like to be neutral too ‘I’ve never been a fan of BL but…’ sometimes you like to be a pro JB over the top misogynist, so your partner can then chime in’ ‘how can you support someone who has supporters like this??!’

By now, the regulars on here all can you tell the Lively posters style, so just stop.

Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and you're like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.

I miss this person. Funny but not overly mean, and also not deranged.

[Anonymous]

WF submitted responsive briefs to both the motion to extend discovery and Jones motion for attorney’s fees (both readily available on Reddit). WF has stepped up its game with respect to brief writing. The first doesn’t object to the extension, but notes the failures of Livelt and Jones to actually notice depositions, their attempts to postpone their own depositions and points out that there is only 150 hours of video footage, not 50,000, none of which should be required viewing for Blake prior to her depo.

The latter is a complete smack down of Jones’ request for attorneys fees, which among other things, had to be filed in state court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The latter is a complete smack down of Jones’ request for attorneys fees, which among other things, had to be filed in state court.

I saw that and was surprised, because I wouldn't expect them to make that kind of mistake, so we'll see what the response is (not something I'm interested in researching, lol). I do think they made a pretty good substantive argument that this wasn't a bad faith lawsuit, just failure to state a claim. Ryan Reynolds I think will have the same problem... calling someone a sexual predator to their agent is the type of thing that gets you sued (I agreed with dismissal for lack of actual malice but that doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit frivolous). Blake really does stand the best chance of winning attorney's fees on the premise that all her allegedly defamatory statements were contained in a CRD claim that become the basis of a lawsuit. And that will really infuriate people if Liman rules for her, plus it could invoke the constitutionality of 47.1 so that will create a lot of fireworks. I almost wonder if they've coordinated for Sloane to go first so they can correct any technical mistakes her lawyers made her, but that kind of sucks for her, and they have different representation so not sure why she would do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The latter is a complete smack down of Jones’ request for attorneys fees, which among other things, had to be filed in state court.

I saw that and was surprised, because I wouldn't expect them to make that kind of mistake, so we'll see what the response is (not something I'm interested in researching, lol). I do think they made a pretty good substantive argument that this wasn't a bad faith lawsuit, just failure to state a claim. Ryan Reynolds I think will have the same problem... calling someone a sexual predator to their agent is the type of thing that gets you sued (I agreed with dismissal for lack of actual malice but that doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit frivolous). Blake really does stand the best chance of winning attorney's fees on the premise that all her allegedly defamatory statements were contained in a CRD claim that become the basis of a lawsuit. And that will really infuriate people if Liman rules for her, plus it could invoke the constitutionality of 47.1 so that will create a lot of fireworks. I almost wonder if they've coordinated for Sloane to go first so they can correct any technical mistakes her lawyers made her, but that kind of sucks for her, and they have different representation so not sure why she would do that.

Not sure if it’s correct, but Reddit seems to believe that there is a 40 day deadline from dismissal for seeking damages under the statute so Jones was the only one who filed on time. Lively seems to be relying on her Rule 11 motion for Attorneys fees.

[Anonymous]

How unusual is it that Blake is delaying the depositions? I’m not the pro-JBer who kept saying she should settle, but I do genuinely believe she doesn’t want to go through with this lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly it seems like the lawyers on here who support Baldoni stopped weighing in on almost every legal issue following their great embarrassment when Baldoni’s entire legal complaint was dismissed, and then follow up embarrassment two weeks later when Freedman didn’t even amend. So to say “hey we didn’t even say anything about those filings” is pretty rich. Sure, you’ll never be wrong again — that’s one way to do it! Congrats!

That filing happened over Fourth of July week and some of us have lives. Happy to discuss the Van Zan ruling within you or if not you, the person who posted non stop about how embarrassing the motion was for WF defendants. Or the Swift motion. Or Blake’s postponing her depo.

So what you're saying is you're happy to discuss exactly three filings where Baldoni's lawyers don't entirely come off looking like unprepared crooks, even if they also occurred over the fourth of July week (depo), but you have no legal opinions to share on the hundreds of remaining legal filings in the case lol.

For example, did you happen to catch the CA judge musing on why Freedman and Garofalo didn't even bother to address the transfer issue in their joint filing? ("Indeed, Movant strangely did not respond to Respondent’s transfer arguments in the initial joint stipulation filing.") Oh, Your Honor, we also have many questions about wtf these lawyers are doing. But I am guessing from the above that you have nothing to say about this, or any other filing where Freedman and co. come off looking like idiots. Okay, NP. We'll make sure to sound the alarm for you when any of those particular three filings you mentioned come up here.

My point is that the motion to dismiss was over a month ago and WF has had some success since then. I could have also mentioned the Swift textmotion Blake lost.

Baldoni supporters just choose, for the most part, not to engage with you and one or two of the other Lively supporters who don’t seem to live entirely in the real world and are unpleasant to boot. Why bother, and with that, I’m off to enjoy thus beautiful afternoon.

This. This pro L poster is a total nut job and no one can stand her other than her pretend friend who posts right after her, conveniently… /s

She’s not only nuts but also immature and petty, and will gloat for post after post if she gets something correct.

People tune her out.