Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Speak for yourself, I thought this was interesting.

-Not a lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

This protective order was issued primarily because of Freedman's outside-the-norm behavior, and people are talking about it. But for Freedman, Lively would surely be arriving three days from now at Meister's offices, Baldoni's attorneys would have access to all 200 (or whatever) boxes of hard copy documents to introduce as exhibits at their leisure, and Shuster would have the silly privilege of forcing Lively to eat Jimmy John's for lunch. Oh, well!

[Anonymous]

Liman is a nepo baby who is scared to rule against certain interests, whether it be the NYTimes or Blake. All his rulings make sense when you look at it through the lens of someone who is afraid of issuing a controversial ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

This protective order was issued primarily because of Freedman's outside-the-norm behavior, and people are talking about it. But for Freedman, Lively would surely be arriving three days from now at Meister's offices, Baldoni's attorneys would have access to all 200 (or whatever) boxes of hard copy documents to introduce as exhibits at their leisure, and Shuster would have the silly privilege of forcing Lively to eat Jimmy John's for lunch. Oh, well!

It doesn’t matter, Blake will do horribly wherever it occurs , her interviews make clear she is uncoachable. I hope it’s going to be filmed for use at trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman is a nepo baby who is scared to rule against certain interests, whether it be the NYTimes or Blake. All his rulings make sense when you look at it through the lens of someone who is afraid of issuing a controversial ruling.

The last couple of rulings are making me reconsider my position on him, lol. The funny thing is though this is one he could have given to Baldoni because it really is not a big deal which Manhattan office Lively sits in for her depo. But it was like "oh, the fact that Lively might have to walk through paparazzi is such an emergency, you must reply by 5 PM on a Sunday, so I can rule for her first thing Monday morning!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Speak for yourself, I thought this was interesting.

-Not a lawyer

Thank you! One addition to what I said above is that the parties are supposed to report in by 5pm today their take on whether Liman can rule on the papers already submitted re the Liman Freedman subpoena issue. So if someone wants to submit additional briefings, that could slow Liman's ruling down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Speak for yourself, I thought this was interesting.

-Not a lawyer

Thank you! One addition to what I said above is that the parties are supposed to report in by 5pm today their take on whether Liman can rule on the papers already submitted re the Liman Freedman subpoena issue. So if someone wants to submit additional briefings, that could slow Liman's ruling down.

Oh, I didn't realize that was this week. I think Lively will win (legitimately, for the most part). It's relevant because Freedman is named in her complaint as part of her ongoing defamation claim and he did not attempt to dismiss it. Communications with third parties like media and content creators won't be privileged or to the extent privileged they can produce a log. At the time I think I posted that Liman would narrow the scope of her requests a bit but now I think he will give almost everything because he's, uh, generous in accepting her arguments lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Speak for yourself, I thought this was interesting.

-Not a lawyer

Thank you! One addition to what I said above is that the parties are supposed to report in by 5pm today their take on whether Liman can rule on the papers already submitted re the Liman Freedman subpoena issue. So if someone wants to submit additional briefings, that could slow Liman's ruling down.

Oh, I didn't realize that was this week. I think Lively will win (legitimately, for the most part). It's relevant because Freedman is named in her complaint as part of her ongoing defamation claim and he did not attempt to dismiss it. Communications with third parties like media and content creators won't be privileged or to the extent privileged they can produce a log. At the time I think I posted that Liman would narrow the scope of her requests a bit but now I think he will give almost everything because he's, uh, generous in accepting her arguments lately.

Gottlieb agreed it would be appropriate for Liman to decide the issue of the Liner Tatleman subpoena based on the briefs already submitted in CA. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.645360/gov.uscourts.nysd.645360.25.0.pdf

Jason Sunshine for Liner Freedman filed an appearance but no substantive pleading here yet.

[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.

Responding to self to note that NAG has weighed in on this and thinks Gottlieb filed this PO as a PR strategy to protect Lively from leaks when they come out of the deposition: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7526991946775088439

Just as a reminder, NAG thought the PO would certainly be denied; she seemed pretty certain about it; she enjoyed Shuster's tone and arguments and scoffed at Lively's security and privacy arguments.

Imo NAG is wrong about this, also. Gottlieb didn't file this for PR. Like I say above, Gottlieb is pounding his themes for Judge Liman. The decision on discovery on the smear at the Liner Freedman firm is coming up fast and this was a great time to get more evidence re what a whackadoodle Freedman is before the judge.

Roughly ~800 pages ago in this thread, I made an argument that good attorneys will often make discovery motions etc. that they know may not necessarily win, but that they make anyway because they are educating the judge about a major theme in their overarching case and they are trying to put as much information explaining why they are right about that theme in front of the judge so as to get them on their side wrt that theme. Gottlieb wound up winning this dep argument, but even if he had not, it would have been totally worth it to get those Vin Diesel papers and refresh those MSG statements in front of this judge before he decides the Liner Freedman firm subpoena issue. That's a tough issue, getting discovery out of a law firm, and I don't know whether Gottlieb will win it, but do I think his chances are better now? Definitely yes. Imho Gottlieb has been really, really smart here in how he has handled everything about this.

It was admittedly pushy of him to demand the dep should occur at his office a week ago and to require names. But I think he did that because he had the Vin Diesel sworn declaration and was wondering how to either use it to his advantage or get it in front of the judge before the law firm subpoena decision. Either he'd get to move the dep, or he'd get to file that pleading with the judge and tee up more Freedman wrongdoing in time for the subpoena decision. I just think that was very smart. While meanwhile, Shuster seems to be directing his best arguments at the reddit fanatics. That is not how you convince a judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Speak for yourself, I thought this was interesting.

-Not a lawyer

Thank you! One addition to what I said above is that the parties are supposed to report in by 5pm today their take on whether Liman can rule on the papers already submitted re the Liman Freedman subpoena issue. So if someone wants to submit additional briefings, that could slow Liman's ruling down.

Oh, I didn't realize that was this week. I think Lively will win (legitimately, for the most part). It's relevant because Freedman is named in her complaint as part of her ongoing defamation claim and he did not attempt to dismiss it. Communications with third parties like media and content creators won't be privileged or to the extent privileged they can produce a log. At the time I think I posted that Liman would narrow the scope of her requests a bit but now I think he will give almost everything because he's, uh, generous in accepting her arguments lately.

Gottlieb agreed it would be appropriate for Liman to decide the issue of the Liner Tatleman subpoena based on the briefs already submitted in CA. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.645360/gov.uscourts.nysd.645360.25.0.pdf

Jason Sunshine for Liner Freedman filed an appearance but no substantive pleading here yet.

And Sunshine files a statement that they agree the judge may decide on the briefing (so long as he will also consider the supplemental pleadings), but request that the judge not decide to skip scheduling a hearing until after he has read those briefings. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.645360/gov.uscourts.nysd.645360.27.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self to note that NAG has weighed in on this and thinks Gottlieb filed this PO as a PR strategy to protect Lively from leaks when they come out of the deposition: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7526991946775088439

Just as a reminder, NAG thought the PO would certainly be denied; she seemed pretty certain about it; she enjoyed Shuster's tone and arguments and scoffed at Lively's security and privacy arguments.

Imo NAG is wrong about this, also. Gottlieb didn't file this for PR. Like I say above, Gottlieb is pounding his themes for Judge Liman. The decision on discovery on the smear at the Liner Freedman firm is coming up fast and this was a great time to get more evidence re what a whackadoodle Freedman is before the judge.

Roughly ~800 pages ago in this thread, I made an argument that good attorneys will often make discovery motions etc. that they know may not necessarily win, but that they make anyway because they are educating the judge about a major theme in their overarching case and they are trying to put as much information explaining why they are right about that theme in front of the judge so as to get them on their side wrt that theme. Gottlieb wound up winning this dep argument, but even if he had not, it would have been totally worth it to get those Vin Diesel papers and refresh those MSG statements in front of this judge before he decides the Liner Freedman firm subpoena issue. That's a tough issue, getting discovery out of a law firm, and I don't know whether Gottlieb will win it, but do I think his chances are better now? Definitely yes. Imho Gottlieb has been really, really smart here in how he has handled everything about this.

It was admittedly pushy of him to demand the dep should occur at his office a week ago and to require names. But I think he did that because he had the Vin Diesel sworn declaration and was wondering how to either use it to his advantage or get it in front of the judge before the law firm subpoena decision. Either he'd get to move the dep, or he'd get to file that pleading with the judge and tee up more Freedman wrongdoing in time for the subpoena decision. I just think that was very smart. While meanwhile, Shuster seems to be directing his best arguments at the reddit fanatics. That is not how you convince a judge.

I remember that argument. I can see where they did this with all the sanctions motions and hammering home the idea that Wayfarer's claims were so meritless that they would be lucky to just get them dismissed. Perhaps they are doing the same thing now.

I don't really agree with NAG either but it was an interesting perspective. She also thought he might be granting things on the basis that she's an SH complainant asking for what makes her comfortable. Whatever it was, still think he should given some brief basis for his decision.

[Anonymous]

Did NAG get yet another decision wrong? Has she gotten anything right? (Team JBer here, if that matters.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self to note that NAG has weighed in on this and thinks Gottlieb filed this PO as a PR strategy to protect Lively from leaks when they come out of the deposition: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7526991946775088439

Just as a reminder, NAG thought the PO would certainly be denied; she seemed pretty certain about it; she enjoyed Shuster's tone and arguments and scoffed at Lively's security and privacy arguments.

Imo NAG is wrong about this, also. Gottlieb didn't file this for PR. Like I say above, Gottlieb is pounding his themes for Judge Liman. The decision on discovery on the smear at the Liner Freedman firm is coming up fast and this was a great time to get more evidence re what a whackadoodle Freedman is before the judge.

Roughly ~800 pages ago in this thread, I made an argument that good attorneys will often make discovery motions etc. that they know may not necessarily win, but that they make anyway because they are educating the judge about a major theme in their overarching case and they are trying to put as much information explaining why they are right about that theme in front of the judge so as to get them on their side wrt that theme. Gottlieb wound up winning this dep argument, but even if he had not, it would have been totally worth it to get those Vin Diesel papers and refresh those MSG statements in front of this judge before he decides the Liner Freedman firm subpoena issue. That's a tough issue, getting discovery out of a law firm, and I don't know whether Gottlieb will win it, but do I think his chances are better now? Definitely yes. Imho Gottlieb has been really, really smart here in how he has handled everything about this.

It was admittedly pushy of him to demand the dep should occur at his office a week ago and to require names. But I think he did that because he had the Vin Diesel sworn declaration and was wondering how to either use it to his advantage or get it in front of the judge before the law firm subpoena decision. Either he'd get to move the dep, or he'd get to file that pleading with the judge and tee up more Freedman wrongdoing in time for the subpoena decision. I just think that was very smart. While meanwhile, Shuster seems to be directing his best arguments at the reddit fanatics. That is not how you convince a judge.

Oh please, Liman is hack that you will twist in circles to defend because you support Blake. One would think he would have learned a lesson when he was reversed for granting a motion to dismiss for Bank of America when his wife owned stock. He is barely coherent when he speaks from the bench, just a nepo baby who has lived off his daddy’s reputation. At least his brother made his own way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did NAG get yet another decision wrong? Has she gotten anything right? (Team JBer here, if that matters.)

It’s not her prognostication that’s off, it’s a wonky judge.

[Anonymous]

More on the nepo baby front, Judge Liman attended Harvard as a legacy (his dad was both an alumnus and a member of the board of overseers) and Yale (again, as a legacy, plus Yale Law School also has the Arthur Liman public interest fellowship).