Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

More examples of pushing a positive narrative would include content on him as a husband and father, as a man of faith, as a supporter of victims of domestic violence, as a director, ad a philanthropist, as fitspo, hair goals, etc.

The goal is to tie him and his image to positive content. Find old interviews and features like his AD home tour. Or praise from Gina Rodriguez and Sabrina Carpenter, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More examples of pushing a positive narrative would include content on him as a husband and father, as a man of faith, as a supporter of victims of domestic violence, as a director, ad a philanthropist, as fitspo, hair goals, etc.

The goal is to tie him and his image to positive content. Find old interviews and features like his AD home tour. Or praise from Gina Rodriguez and Sabrina Carpenter, etc

The issue here is that Melissa said: ''We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spot light on Blake and Ryan."

That suggests they didn't merely amplify or post positive content about Justin, but perhaps amplified/posted negative content about Blake and Ryan. The most charitable reading of this could be that Melissa meant to say: "We've also started to see a shift on social; since Jed has been amplifying positive content about Justin, that means the spotlight is now on Blake and Ryan." The second most charitable reading would be that that maybe he and his employees "liked" or "shared" negative content about Blake and Ryan, but didn't actually post anything negative about them. Tbh, I would believe that. It's just hard to tell, and I'm very curious how Melissa would defend this text.

[Anonymous]

I agree we need more info and hopefully the details come out. But one example I can see is that Jed amplified or pushed content focusing on Justin’s intended version of the movie and the marketing leaving open for interpretation that the negative publicity was due to Blake and Ryan’s focus on florals, fashion and booze.

[Anonymous]

Also, pushing the narrative that Justin and his family/friends were forced to the basement at the premiere. With the unsaid blame going to Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, pushing the narrative that Justin and his family/friends were forced to the basement at the premiere. With the unsaid blame going to Blake.

That isn’t remotely retaliation, it’s rehabilitation.

[Anonymous]

I really don’t care one way or the other about this but what really struck me is that no one in Hollywood has come out to support Blake, including her own circle. That leads me to believe there was no retaliation scheme but people were fed up.

It’s going to be really hard to prove damages from her hair products. You go online, you read a ton of criticism about how people feel it makes their hair dry and brittle, they think it’s overpriced, they think the packaging is too clunky for their apartment shower and so on. How was that Justin’s fault? People are looking for a hair product and it’s not fitting their needs.

I also think it’s going to be tough if they dig into the actual origins of the product, Blake has come out and said she’s been developing it for seven years and we all know that actually the company shopped at around to other celebs and then landed on Blake last minute. If that kind of thing comes out, it will be damaging to Blake’s credibility.

I’d be shocked if this went to trial, but who knows. The thing is, this is dragging on for so long, but this is who Blake lively is. She will never be seen as anyone but the person in this scandal that has pretty much weekly headlines. How do you get acting roles after that, or what companies would want to put your name on their products after that, I do not know.

Ryan is at least a little separated from it, but this is who Blake Lively is at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, pushing the narrative that Justin and his family/friends were forced to the basement at the premiere. With the unsaid blame going to Blake.

That isn’t remotely retaliation, it’s rehabilitation.

I agree and I don’t think she can win the case. Mounting a social media campaign to protect or rehab your image isn’t a smear campaign or retaliation.

I also don’t believe she can win on the SH claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Lively has moved to file a reply in the case management plan motion, noting among other things that it now seems to be Freedman who is attempting to delay Lively's deposition even though Lively stands ready to have the dep on July 17. Gottlieb does note security issues from having the dep at defendants offices, and also files the Vin Diesel affidavit as an exhibit in expressing concern about recent "unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman."

"In that same correspondence, the Wayfarer Parties also refused to agree that Ms. Lively’s deposition be held at her counsel’s office to ensure that appropriate security measures could be in place under the supervision of her counsel. This is particularly concerning given the high-profile nature of this case, the substantial public and media interest, Ms. Lively’s right to personal safety and the protections of the Court’s Protective Order, especially in light of Mr. Freedman’s previous threats to “live stream” and “sell tickets to” Ms. Lively’s deposition, as well as recent allegations, detailed in recent filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, of unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman. See Ex. B.

Lively also notes a major problem in here with the film that was provided, explaining that the sound isn't synched to the picture (!!!), effectively making it largely worthless. Kind of feels like Liner Freedman planned this tbh.

Motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.401.0.pdf

Bender declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.0.pdf

Exhibit A: Email exchange where Liner Freedman appears to sua sponte postpone Lively's deposition, and insist on its original location, but agrees to provide film by 7/11.

Vin Diesel pleading filed here as Exhibit B to Lively pleading (see, it was relevant to this case after all lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.2.pdf

And Liman has already very quickly issued an Order in response, referencing Lively's letter filed today and requiring all parties to show cause by Friday, July 11, why he should not issue an order requiring that:

All document production by parties and nonparties shall be completed by July 25, 2025. (Third-party subpoenas shall require production no later than July 25, 2025.)
Motions to compel regarding document production shall be filed by no later than August 1, 2025.
Depositions shall be completed by September 30, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2025.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.403.0.pdf

Thank you for posting the updates/links.

I read it to mean the video has no audio at all, which is very obnoxious.

Do you all think the parties will come to an agreement on Lively's deposition setting, or will it end up in front of the judge?

Yes, you were right about there being no audio at all, I was wrong about the synching whoops.

Good question about the setting. I honestly think that maybe there was a typo in the Baldoni atty's email and that they are saying that not all film (with audio) will be produced by July 11 (therefore necessitating rescheduling of the dep), but I could be completely wrong. If so, maybe that wards off the location question for a bit.

If not, I suspect Gottlieb will push the issue to Liman because I don't think Freedman will give in, and I actually think Gottlieb may lose here. They aren't really supposed to have the home court advantage for the dep, even with security concerns (and asking for the names of who would be attending, an entire week in advance, is legit unfair of Gottlieb imho. The attendees is not really security info you need an entire week in advance, that's really info gathering for strategy imo). But Gottlieb had Freedman's crazy behavior from the Vin Diesel encounter to back up his security concerns with, as well as Freedman's MSG comments, so he had some leverage to ask for the location change.

It's also weird because Vin Diesel himself was asking for a location change for his own dep, so it wouldn't be held at opposing counsel's offices, for his own "security concerns" lol. And in that case, on 7/1, the judge actually did side with Diesel and require that dep to occur at Freedman's offices instead of the usual custom of having it at the offices of the counsel affirmatively taking the dep. So it's entirely possible Liman will do the same thing here and side with Gottlieb (though I doubt he'd require the names a week in advance). It's all really just a snake eating its own tail, and completely ironic in that way.

Hope it is appropriate to provide this commentary here, since it's the exact same issue arising in the Baldoni case here and the filing about it was actually filed in the Baldoni case.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer filed MTC for Blake’s financial statements and damages. Maybe they want to make a settlement offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Lively has moved to file a reply in the case management plan motion, noting among other things that it now seems to be Freedman who is attempting to delay Lively's deposition even though Lively stands ready to have the dep on July 17. Gottlieb does note security issues from having the dep at defendants offices, and also files the Vin Diesel affidavit as an exhibit in expressing concern about recent "unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman."

"In that same correspondence, the Wayfarer Parties also refused to agree that Ms. Lively’s deposition be held at her counsel’s office to ensure that appropriate security measures could be in place under the supervision of her counsel. This is particularly concerning given the high-profile nature of this case, the substantial public and media interest, Ms. Lively’s right to personal safety and the protections of the Court’s Protective Order, especially in light of Mr. Freedman’s previous threats to “live stream” and “sell tickets to” Ms. Lively’s deposition, as well as recent allegations, detailed in recent filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, of unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman. See Ex. B.

Lively also notes a major problem in here with the film that was provided, explaining that the sound isn't synched to the picture (!!!), effectively making it largely worthless. Kind of feels like Liner Freedman planned this tbh.

Motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.401.0.pdf

Bender declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.0.pdf

Exhibit A: Email exchange where Liner Freedman appears to sua sponte postpone Lively's deposition, and insist on its original location, but agrees to provide film by 7/11.

Vin Diesel pleading filed here as Exhibit B to Lively pleading (see, it was relevant to this case after all lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.2.pdf

And Liman has already very quickly issued an Order in response, referencing Lively's letter filed today and requiring all parties to show cause by Friday, July 11, why he should not issue an order requiring that:

All document production by parties and nonparties shall be completed by July 25, 2025. (Third-party subpoenas shall require production no later than July 25, 2025.)
Motions to compel regarding document production shall be filed by no later than August 1, 2025.
Depositions shall be completed by September 30, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2025.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.403.0.pdf

Thank you for posting the updates/links.

I read it to mean the video has no audio at all, which is very obnoxious.

Do you all think the parties will come to an agreement on Lively's deposition setting, or will it end up in front of the judge?

Yes, you were right about there being no audio at all, I was wrong about the synching whoops.

Good question about the setting. I honestly think that maybe there was a typo in the Baldoni atty's email and that they are saying that not all film (with audio) will be produced by July 11 (therefore necessitating rescheduling of the dep), but I could be completely wrong. If so, maybe that wards off the location question for a bit.

If not, I suspect Gottlieb will push the issue to Liman because I don't think Freedman will give in, and I actually think Gottlieb may lose here. They aren't really supposed to have the home court advantage for the dep, even with security concerns (and asking for the names of who would be attending, an entire week in advance, is legit unfair of Gottlieb imho. The attendees is not really security info you need an entire week in advance, that's really info gathering for strategy imo). But Gottlieb had Freedman's crazy behavior from the Vin Diesel encounter to back up his security concerns with, as well as Freedman's MSG comments, so he had some leverage to ask for the location change.

It's also weird because Vin Diesel himself was asking for a location change for his own dep, so it wouldn't be held at opposing counsel's offices, for his own "security concerns" lol. And in that case, on 7/1, the judge actually did side with Diesel and require that dep to occur at Freedman's offices instead of the usual custom of having it at the offices of the counsel affirmatively taking the dep. So it's entirely possible Liman will do the same thing here and side with Gottlieb (though I doubt he'd require the names a week in advance). It's all really just a snake eating its own tail, and completely ironic in that way.

Hope it is appropriate to provide this commentary here, since it's the exact same issue arising in the Baldoni case here and the filing about it was actually filed in the Baldoni case.

It’s inappropriate. You already started another thread that no one cared about to discuss this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Lively has moved to file a reply in the case management plan motion, noting among other things that it now seems to be Freedman who is attempting to delay Lively's deposition even though Lively stands ready to have the dep on July 17. Gottlieb does note security issues from having the dep at defendants offices, and also files the Vin Diesel affidavit as an exhibit in expressing concern about recent "unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman."

"In that same correspondence, the Wayfarer Parties also refused to agree that Ms. Lively’s deposition be held at her counsel’s office to ensure that appropriate security measures could be in place under the supervision of her counsel. This is particularly concerning given the high-profile nature of this case, the substantial public and media interest, Ms. Lively’s right to personal safety and the protections of the Court’s Protective Order, especially in light of Mr. Freedman’s previous threats to “live stream” and “sell tickets to” Ms. Lively’s deposition, as well as recent allegations, detailed in recent filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, of unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman. See Ex. B.

Lively also notes a major problem in here with the film that was provided, explaining that the sound isn't synched to the picture (!!!), effectively making it largely worthless. Kind of feels like Liner Freedman planned this tbh.

Motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.401.0.pdf

Bender declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.0.pdf

Exhibit A: Email exchange where Liner Freedman appears to sua sponte postpone Lively's deposition, and insist on its original location, but agrees to provide film by 7/11.

Vin Diesel pleading filed here as Exhibit B to Lively pleading (see, it was relevant to this case after all lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.2.pdf

And Liman has already very quickly issued an Order in response, referencing Lively's letter filed today and requiring all parties to show cause by Friday, July 11, why he should not issue an order requiring that:

All document production by parties and nonparties shall be completed by July 25, 2025. (Third-party subpoenas shall require production no later than July 25, 2025.)
Motions to compel regarding document production shall be filed by no later than August 1, 2025.
Depositions shall be completed by September 30, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2025.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.403.0.pdf

Thank you for posting the updates/links.

I read it to mean the video has no audio at all, which is very obnoxious.

Do you all think the parties will come to an agreement on Lively's deposition setting, or will it end up in front of the judge?

Yes, you were right about there being no audio at all, I was wrong about the synching whoops.

Good question about the setting. I honestly think that maybe there was a typo in the Baldoni atty's email and that they are saying that not all film (with audio) will be produced by July 11 (therefore necessitating rescheduling of the dep), but I could be completely wrong. If so, maybe that wards off the location question for a bit.

If not, I suspect Gottlieb will push the issue to Liman because I don't think Freedman will give in, and I actually think Gottlieb may lose here. They aren't really supposed to have the home court advantage for the dep, even with security concerns (and asking for the names of who would be attending, an entire week in advance, is legit unfair of Gottlieb imho. The attendees is not really security info you need an entire week in advance, that's really info gathering for strategy imo). But Gottlieb had Freedman's crazy behavior from the Vin Diesel encounter to back up his security concerns with, as well as Freedman's MSG comments, so he had some leverage to ask for the location change.

It's also weird because Vin Diesel himself was asking for a location change for his own dep, so it wouldn't be held at opposing counsel's offices, for his own "security concerns" lol. And in that case, on 7/1, the judge actually did side with Diesel and require that dep to occur at Freedman's offices instead of the usual custom of having it at the offices of the counsel affirmatively taking the dep. So it's entirely possible Liman will do the same thing here and side with Gottlieb (though I doubt he'd require the names a week in advance). It's all really just a snake eating its own tail, and completely ironic in that way.

Hope it is appropriate to provide this commentary here, since it's the exact same issue arising in the Baldoni case here and the filing about it was actually filed in the Baldoni case.

It’s inappropriate. You already started another thread that no one cared about to discuss this.

Are you a child? Every single Reddit forum thinks it’s relevant here and is discussing the issue because Gottlieb filed the Vin Diesel papers in the Baldoni docket as an exhibit, as evidence for more security being needed at Lively’s deposition.

Come on. Be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Lively has moved to file a reply in the case management plan motion, noting among other things that it now seems to be Freedman who is attempting to delay Lively's deposition even though Lively stands ready to have the dep on July 17. Gottlieb does note security issues from having the dep at defendants offices, and also files the Vin Diesel affidavit as an exhibit in expressing concern about recent "unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman."

"In that same correspondence, the Wayfarer Parties also refused to agree that Ms. Lively’s deposition be held at her counsel’s office to ensure that appropriate security measures could be in place under the supervision of her counsel. This is particularly concerning given the high-profile nature of this case, the substantial public and media interest, Ms. Lively’s right to personal safety and the protections of the Court’s Protective Order, especially in light of Mr. Freedman’s previous threats to “live stream” and “sell tickets to” Ms. Lively’s deposition, as well as recent allegations, detailed in recent filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, of unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman. See Ex. B.

Lively also notes a major problem in here with the film that was provided, explaining that the sound isn't synched to the picture (!!!), effectively making it largely worthless. Kind of feels like Liner Freedman planned this tbh.

Motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.401.0.pdf

Bender declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.0.pdf

Exhibit A: Email exchange where Liner Freedman appears to sua sponte postpone Lively's deposition, and insist on its original location, but agrees to provide film by 7/11.

Vin Diesel pleading filed here as Exhibit B to Lively pleading (see, it was relevant to this case after all lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.2.pdf

And Liman has already very quickly issued an Order in response, referencing Lively's letter filed today and requiring all parties to show cause by Friday, July 11, why he should not issue an order requiring that:

All document production by parties and nonparties shall be completed by July 25, 2025. (Third-party subpoenas shall require production no later than July 25, 2025.)
Motions to compel regarding document production shall be filed by no later than August 1, 2025.
Depositions shall be completed by September 30, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2025.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.403.0.pdf

Thank you for posting the updates/links.

I read it to mean the video has no audio at all, which is very obnoxious.

Do you all think the parties will come to an agreement on Lively's deposition setting, or will it end up in front of the judge?

Yes, you were right about there being no audio at all, I was wrong about the synching whoops.

Good question about the setting. I honestly think that maybe there was a typo in the Baldoni atty's email and that they are saying that not all film (with audio) will be produced by July 11 (therefore necessitating rescheduling of the dep), but I could be completely wrong. If so, maybe that wards off the location question for a bit.

If not, I suspect Gottlieb will push the issue to Liman because I don't think Freedman will give in, and I actually think Gottlieb may lose here. They aren't really supposed to have the home court advantage for the dep, even with security concerns (and asking for the names of who would be attending, an entire week in advance, is legit unfair of Gottlieb imho. The attendees is not really security info you need an entire week in advance, that's really info gathering for strategy imo). But Gottlieb had Freedman's crazy behavior from the Vin Diesel encounter to back up his security concerns with, as well as Freedman's MSG comments, so he had some leverage to ask for the location change.

It's also weird because Vin Diesel himself was asking for a location change for his own dep, so it wouldn't be held at opposing counsel's offices, for his own "security concerns" lol. And in that case, on 7/1, the judge actually did side with Diesel and require that dep to occur at Freedman's offices instead of the usual custom of having it at the offices of the counsel affirmatively taking the dep. So it's entirely possible Liman will do the same thing here and side with Gottlieb (though I doubt he'd require the names a week in advance). It's all really just a snake eating its own tail, and completely ironic in that way.

Hope it is appropriate to provide this commentary here, since it's the exact same issue arising in the Baldoni case here and the filing about it was actually filed in the Baldoni case.

It’s inappropriate. You already started another thread that no one cared about to discuss this.

Are you a child? Every single Reddit forum thinks it’s relevant here and is discussing the issue because Gottlieb filed the Vin Diesel papers in the Baldoni docket as an exhibit, as evidence for more security being needed at Lively’s deposition.

Come on. Be real.

Then go to Reddit, you won’t be missed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Lively has moved to file a reply in the case management plan motion, noting among other things that it now seems to be Freedman who is attempting to delay Lively's deposition even though Lively stands ready to have the dep on July 17. Gottlieb does note security issues from having the dep at defendants offices, and also files the Vin Diesel affidavit as an exhibit in expressing concern about recent "unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman."

"In that same correspondence, the Wayfarer Parties also refused to agree that Ms. Lively’s deposition be held at her counsel’s office to ensure that appropriate security measures could be in place under the supervision of her counsel. This is particularly concerning given the high-profile nature of this case, the substantial public and media interest, Ms. Lively’s right to personal safety and the protections of the Court’s Protective Order, especially in light of Mr. Freedman’s previous threats to “live stream” and “sell tickets to” Ms. Lively’s deposition, as well as recent allegations, detailed in recent filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, of unprofessional and physically aggressive deposition tactics by Mr. Freedman. See Ex. B.

Lively also notes a major problem in here with the film that was provided, explaining that the sound isn't synched to the picture (!!!), effectively making it largely worthless. Kind of feels like Liner Freedman planned this tbh.

Motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.401.0.pdf

Bender declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.0.pdf

Exhibit A: Email exchange where Liner Freedman appears to sua sponte postpone Lively's deposition, and insist on its original location, but agrees to provide film by 7/11.

Vin Diesel pleading filed here as Exhibit B to Lively pleading (see, it was relevant to this case after all lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.402.2.pdf

And Liman has already very quickly issued an Order in response, referencing Lively's letter filed today and requiring all parties to show cause by Friday, July 11, why he should not issue an order requiring that:

All document production by parties and nonparties shall be completed by July 25, 2025. (Third-party subpoenas shall require production no later than July 25, 2025.)
Motions to compel regarding document production shall be filed by no later than August 1, 2025.
Depositions shall be completed by September 30, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed by September 30, 2025.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.403.0.pdf

Thank you for posting the updates/links.

I read it to mean the video has no audio at all, which is very obnoxious.

Do you all think the parties will come to an agreement on Lively's deposition setting, or will it end up in front of the judge?

Yes, you were right about there being no audio at all, I was wrong about the synching whoops.

Good question about the setting. I honestly think that maybe there was a typo in the Baldoni atty's email and that they are saying that not all film (with audio) will be produced by July 11 (therefore necessitating rescheduling of the dep), but I could be completely wrong. If so, maybe that wards off the location question for a bit.

If not, I suspect Gottlieb will push the issue to Liman because I don't think Freedman will give in, and I actually think Gottlieb may lose here. They aren't really supposed to have the home court advantage for the dep, even with security concerns (and asking for the names of who would be attending, an entire week in advance, is legit unfair of Gottlieb imho. The attendees is not really security info you need an entire week in advance, that's really info gathering for strategy imo). But Gottlieb had Freedman's crazy behavior from the Vin Diesel encounter to back up his security concerns with, as well as Freedman's MSG comments, so he had some leverage to ask for the location change.

It's also weird because Vin Diesel himself was asking for a location change for his own dep, so it wouldn't be held at opposing counsel's offices, for his own "security concerns" lol. And in that case, on 7/1, the judge actually did side with Diesel and require that dep to occur at Freedman's offices instead of the usual custom of having it at the offices of the counsel affirmatively taking the dep. So it's entirely possible Liman will do the same thing here and side with Gottlieb (though I doubt he'd require the names a week in advance). It's all really just a snake eating its own tail, and completely ironic in that way.

Hope it is appropriate to provide this commentary here, since it's the exact same issue arising in the Baldoni case here and the filing about it was actually filed in the Baldoni case.

It’s inappropriate. You already started another thread that no one cared about to discuss this.

Are you a child? Every single Reddit forum thinks it’s relevant here and is discussing the issue because Gottlieb filed the Vin Diesel papers in the Baldoni docket as an exhibit, as evidence for more security being needed at Lively’s deposition.

Come on. Be real.

Then go to Reddit, you won’t be missed

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Blake is trying to subpoena content creators. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Another Gottlieb filing on where the deposition will take place and I am here for this, as it rubs Bryan Freedman’s nose in all of his prior unprofessional conduct and shows how petty Freedman is being about the location. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.415.0.pdf