Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman granted Lively's request for a protective order - Gottlieb must provide opposing counsel a private room etc.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.419.0.pdf

Sorry to gloat, but I was actually right here.

Why do you keep inventing imaginary arguments? No one disagreed with you. We all knew he would grant it since Liman is corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman granted Lively's request for a protective order - Gottlieb must provide opposing counsel a private room etc.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.419.0.pdf

Sorry to gloat, but I was actually right here.

Gloat all you want but she’s leveraged her celeb status for special treatment in ways no normal person could. Rules for me not for thee BS and I’m pissed the judge granted it.

[Anonymous]

Liman granted the protective order without explaining his decision

BUT

if I knew absolutely nothing about this case and had never heard of any of the litigants, but you told me that the defandants' attorney had told a tabloid that they wanted to take the plaintiff's deposition in Madison Square Garden and sell tickets to the event, this is the the outcome I would predict.

You can't do stuff like that and expect the court to overlook it or give you the benefit of the doubt. Think of it from the court's position. If Liman rejects this PO and then Lively is accosted by photographers when showing up to her deposition, or details from the depo are leaked to tabloids, the court will have clearly erred in not doing something to protect the plaintiff especially since the defendants' attorney was on the public record promising something like that. Whereas there is really no downside to granting the PO. Having the depo at Gottlieb's office is not some magical advantage. It's an office building. It's not that big of a deal.

Freedman had to have known this would be a likely outcome of him making the MSG comment. And it would have been stupid for Lively's attorneys not to press for it, because it's more convenient and easier for them so why not use Freedman's screw up to their advantage.

Saying this means Liman is "corrupt" is bananas. This is what every judge I've ever encountered would do in this situation. It's an easy decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.

A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious. "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out. None of the attendees will be members of the press. We are not looking for a media circus." etc. Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore. Absolutely unforced error.

[Anonymous]

Hey, hey, hey!

Can someone tell in short what this thread all about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.

A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious. "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out. None of the attendees will be members of the press. We are not looking for a media circus." etc. Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore. Absolutely unforced error.

The cynic in me thinks that it wasn't an error but an intentional choice, knowing it would lead Liman to grant Lively's PO, so they can now encourage the narrative that Liman is "biased" towards Lively. All they give up is hosting a deposition, which is really not the huge advantage people seem to be making it out to be, but the gain a chance to say "see, Liman gave her everything she wanted" so that if/when they lose on other more substantive motions down the road, they can complain about an ongoing pattern of bias. Is it a legally sound argument? No. Will it play in the press and with Baldoni's supporters on Reddit. Of course, it's already in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.

I'm very confused by this whole paragraph.

What do you mean believe at our own "peril"? Is the Accurate-Legal-Prediction God going to come down and judge me for being frustrated with Liman's decisions? No one has said this was NOT going to come true. We said it WAS going to be granted because Lively gets everything she wants, so what are you even talking about?

And also, what do you mean committing unforced errors and failing to call them out on it? Call out who? Freedman? Do we have a hotline to Freedman where we can report legal missteps that we're failing to do? Or do you mistakenly seem to think anonymous posters on the internet are part of Justin's legal team?

[Anonymous]

if justin tried to get some of blake's claims dismissed, do you think he would have succeeded on any? which ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.

A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious. "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out. None of the attendees will be members of the press. We are not looking for a media circus." etc. Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore. Absolutely unforced error.

The cynic in me thinks that it wasn't an error but an intentional choice, knowing it would lead Liman to grant Lively's PO, so they can now encourage the narrative that Liman is "biased" towards Lively. All they give up is hosting a deposition, which is really not the huge advantage people seem to be making it out to be, but the gain a chance to say "see, Liman gave her everything she wanted" so that if/when they lose on other more substantive motions down the road, they can complain about an ongoing pattern of bias. Is it a legally sound argument? No. Will it play in the press and with Baldoni's supporters on Reddit. Of course, it's already in action.

Maybe. I don't think so, though. I think Baldoni's team would very much like this dep to go badly for Lively and would like to have all the power they can to orchestrate that result, down to encouraging people with signs in front of the building or controlling the temp of the room, or whatever. I don't put much past them when it comes to petty. Just read their letters to the court lol.

Liman may have filed the basis for his ruling under seal - there is something about that on the docket and Reddit is also discussing. So Liman may have said more about Freedman and even specifically about the Vin Diesel docket exhibit, but we won't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman granted the protective order without explaining his decision

BUT

if I knew absolutely nothing about this case and had never heard of any of the litigants, but you told me that the defandants' attorney had told a tabloid that they wanted to take the plaintiff's deposition in Madison Square Garden and sell tickets to the event, this is the the outcome I would predict.

You can't do stuff like that and expect the court to overlook it or give you the benefit of the doubt. Think of it from the court's position. If Liman rejects this PO and then Lively is accosted by photographers when showing up to her deposition, or details from the depo are leaked to tabloids, the court will have clearly erred in not doing something to protect the plaintiff especially since the defendants' attorney was on the public record promising something like that. Whereas there is really no downside to granting the PO. Having the depo at Gottlieb's office is not some magical advantage. It's an office building. It's not that big of a deal.

Freedman had to have known this would be a likely outcome of him making the MSG comment. And it would have been stupid for Lively's attorneys not to press for it, because it's more convenient and easier for them so why not use Freedman's screw up to their advantage.

Saying this means Liman is "corrupt" is bananas. This is what every judge I've ever encountered would do in this situation. It's an easy decision.

I've actually defended Liman or attempted to post neutral analysis of his decisions (which for the most part I have agreed with except for the Jed Wallace client list) but it does stand out that he made zero attempt here to provide any basis for this decision, neither legal not factual. He typically does that. It's kind of sus TBH.

So what if there are paparazzi? There can be paparazzi at Manatt's office too. The date and time of the depo is out there. If Wayfarer wants to leak info from the depo they can do that regardless of location. They can be sanctioned for that. I don't see this great concern, for example, of what happens if Wallace's client list gets leaked and he loses his reputation and business. Judge said it was protected by the existing PO. The existing PO also protects from Lively's deposition getting livestreamed or leaked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if justin tried to get some of blake's claims dismissed, do you think he would have succeeded on any? which ones?

I posted about it the other day: her defamation claim is pretty thin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.



A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious. "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out. None of the attendees will be members of the press. We are not looking for a media circus." etc. Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore. Absolutely unforced error.

I agree with you that Liman isn’t corrupt and they he did the right thing here. But I don’t think you’re seeing the bigger picture. The location doesn’t matter either way, and Baldonis side knows that. Freedman is just trolling Blake, pointing out she’s a Prima Donna and expects special treatment whenever she goes. He made his point. The issue isn’t a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Wherever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.



A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious. "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out. None of the attendees will be members of the press. We are not looking for a media circus." etc. Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore. Absolutely unforced error.

I agree with you that Liman isn’t corrupt and they he did the right thing here. But I don’t think you’re seeing the bigger picture. The location doesn’t matter either way, and Baldonis side knows that. Freedman is just trolling Blake, pointing out she’s a Prima Donna and expects special treatment whenever she goes. He made his point. The issue isn’t a big deal.

Hoo boy do I disagree with you on this one. You're talking about the bigger picture like it's purely on the PR side -- does Lively look like a diva to Baldoni fans and will that continue to incite their rabid reactions in this case?

Whereas to me the real bigger picture is that Liman will be deciding very soon whether or not to grant discovery against the Liman Freedman firm itself, for participating in the smears, and this entire briefing just reinforced Gottlieb's themes that Freedman is a bizarro wildcard who does not follow normal rules of professional conduct for lawyers -- which reinforces the fact that as Gottlieb is arguing, Freedman himself may very well be involved in the smear. I bet that decision is coming early this week. You think it was good for Liman to be reading that Vin Diesel pleading while he's deciding that issue? I do not.

In fact, I think having that Vin Diesel pleading in his back pocket is exactly why Gottlieb had his people send the email insisting the dep would occur at Lively's law firm in the first place. It was a bit of a threat -- give in to us on the location and the attendees or we will send your crazy behavior as described in this pleading to Judge Liman. And Garofalo scoffed and provided zero reassurances, so Gottlieb filed the motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised.

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril. Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.



A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious. "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out. None of the attendees will be members of the press. We are not looking for a media circus." etc. Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore. Absolutely unforced error.

I agree with you that Liman isn’t corrupt and they he did the right thing here. But I don’t think you’re seeing the bigger picture. The location doesn’t matter either way, and Baldonis side knows that. Freedman is just trolling Blake, pointing out she’s a Prima Donna and expects special treatment whenever she goes. He made his point. The issue isn’t a big deal.

Hoo boy do I disagree with you on this one. You're talking about the bigger picture like it's purely on the PR side -- does Lively look like a diva to Baldoni fans and will that continue to incite their rabid reactions in this case?

Whereas to me the real bigger picture is that Liman will be deciding very soon whether or not to grant discovery against the Liman Freedman firm itself, for participating in the smears, and this entire briefing just reinforced Gottlieb's themes that Freedman is a bizarro wildcard who does not follow normal rules of professional conduct for lawyers -- which reinforces the fact that as Gottlieb is arguing, Freedman himself may very well be involved in the smear. I bet that decision is coming early this week. You think it was good for Liman to be reading that Vin Diesel pleading while he's deciding that issue? I do not.

In fact, I think having that Vin Diesel pleading in his back pocket is exactly why Gottlieb had his people send the email insisting the dep would occur at Lively's law firm in the first place. It was a bit of a threat -- give in to us on the location and the attendees or we will send your crazy behavior as described in this pleading to Judge Liman. And Garofalo scoffed and provided zero reassurances, so Gottlieb filed the motion.

Go to your thread!! No one here cares about your obsession with Freedman!