Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

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

I think so -- on Sunday night she read the Wayfarer party letter re the dep location and thought it was very measured and "took down the temperature of the room" and took the air out of Lively's arguments, where she looked like a "prima donna." https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7526726103587769613

NAG didn't address Wayfarer's failure to address Freedman's alleged behavior at the Vin Diesel meet and confer or really deal with how incendiary Freedman's MSG statements were (she said the statements were awful but that everyone seemed to be past that!).

Anyway. This is not the way Liman saw it, and that's not because Liman is biased. Multiple people in this thread said before the ruling that Shuster's letter didn't properly address Lively's safety concerns, and just made fun of them instead. This was predictable, but NAG is in a bit of a Baldoni-fan bubble imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I think so -- on Sunday night she read the Wayfarer party letter re the dep location and thought it was very measured and "took down the temperature of the room" and took the air out of Lively's arguments, where she looked like a "prima donna." https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7526726103587769613

NAG didn't address Wayfarer's failure to address Freedman's alleged behavior at the Vin Diesel meet and confer or really deal with how incendiary Freedman's MSG statements were (she said the statements were awful but that everyone seemed to be past that!).

Anyway. This is not the way Liman saw it, and that's not because Liman is biased. Multiple people in this thread said before the ruling that Shuster's letter didn't properly address Lively's safety concerns, and just made fun of them instead. This was predictable, but NAG is in a bit of a Baldoni-fan bubble imo.

You don’t count as multiple people even though you spam with multiple posts, and you mock all Baldoni filings, including the motions they has won,l

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of online reviews of a Liman pre-Lively case that note his bias towards moneyed interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

This should bias him in favor of Baldoni, whose millionaire dad funded his film studio and continues to sit on its board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of online reviews of a Liman pre-Lively case that note his bias towards moneyed interests.

What reviews?

[Anonymous]

Sloane has filed a reply brief in the sanctions motion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.420.0.pdf

I haven't read the the whole thing except glancing over the footnotes first (as always ha!) I noticed this:

"Confronted with James Vituscka’s sworn declaration, the Wayfarer Parties weakly assert that his “recent disavowal of his prior statements is not credible,” effectively accusing him of having committed perjury. Opp. at 24. The Wayfarer Parties did not, however, provide declarations from the two people Vituscka communicated with (Melissa Nathan or Bryan Freedman), publish or otherwise furnish their communications with him (which the Wayfarer Parties inexplicably withheld from the Sloane Parties during discovery), or explain how Vituscka’s specific and sworn to statements were incorrect. It is beyond dispute that the Wayfarer Parties were in direct communication with Vituscka at all relevant times and could have verified allegations attributable to him with little difficulty. See Ex. A (Dec. 23, 2024, email chain between Vituscka, Nathan, and Freedman inviting Vituscka to “Feel free to come for request for comment here”). They instead chose not to undertake any investigation whatsoever into what were clearly false allegations they intentionally included in highly publicized court documents."

Exhibit A (not that exciting ha): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.420.1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of online reviews of a Liman pre-Lively case that note his bias towards moneyed interests.

What reviews?

Google os your friend.

[Anonymous]

IMO, the decision that really showed Liman’s bias was requiring Wallace to release the names of all his clients, while basically acknowledging in his briefing order that he didn’t have jurisdiction over Wallace. If Wallace loses that motion to dismiss, he should appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

This should bias him in favor of Baldoni, whose millionaire dad funded his film studio and continues to sit on its board.

Blake and Ryan have far more money and power, it isn’t remotely debatable. Blake even bragged about having a NYTimes reporter on speed dial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the decision that really showed Liman’s bias was requiring Wallace to release the names of all his clients, while basically acknowledging in his briefing order that he didn’t have jurisdiction over Wallace. If Wallace loses that motion to dismiss, he should appeal.

+1 my opinion on Liman began to change with that one. This deposition ruling seems wonky too... the expedited schedule and zero explanation for the ruling, not even a two line "Lively overcomes the presumption by citing security concerns given the media frenzy over the case." I'm not even saying I would disagree with a reasoned ruling for Lively there, but I didn't see a true articulated threat to her security.

[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!

[phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the decision that really showed Liman’s bias was requiring Wallace to release the names of all his clients, while basically acknowledging in his briefing order that he didn’t have jurisdiction over Wallace. If Wallace loses that motion to dismiss, he should appeal.

+1 my opinion on Liman began to change with that one. This deposition ruling seems wonky too... the expedited schedule and zero explanation for the ruling, not even a two line "Lively overcomes the presumption by citing security concerns given the media frenzy over the case." I'm not even saying I would disagree with a reasoned ruling for Lively there, but I didn't see a true articulated threat to her security.

The Wallace decision really soured me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the decision that really showed Liman’s bias was requiring Wallace to release the names of all his clients, while basically acknowledging in his briefing order that he didn’t have jurisdiction over Wallace. If Wallace loses that motion to dismiss, he should appeal.

+1 my opinion on Liman began to change with that one. This deposition ruling seems wonky too... the expedited schedule and zero explanation for the ruling, not even a two line "Lively overcomes the presumption by citing security concerns given the media frenzy over the case." I'm not even saying I would disagree with a reasoned ruling for Lively there, but I didn't see a true articulated threat to her security.

The Wallace decision really soured me too.

Same. Really put off by that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sloane has filed a reply brief in the sanctions motion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.420.0.pdf

I haven't read the the whole thing except glancing over the footnotes first (as always ha!) I noticed this:

"Confronted with James Vituscka’s sworn declaration, the Wayfarer Parties weakly assert that his “recent disavowal of his prior statements is not credible,” effectively accusing him of having committed perjury. Opp. at 24. The Wayfarer Parties did not, however, provide declarations from the two people Vituscka communicated with (Melissa Nathan or Bryan Freedman), publish or otherwise furnish their communications with him (which the Wayfarer Parties inexplicably withheld from the Sloane Parties during discovery), or explain how Vituscka’s specific and sworn to statements were incorrect. It is beyond dispute that the Wayfarer Parties were in direct communication with Vituscka at all relevant times and could have verified allegations attributable to him with little difficulty. See Ex. A (Dec. 23, 2024, email chain between Vituscka, Nathan, and Freedman inviting Vituscka to “Feel free to come for request for comment here”). They instead chose not to undertake any investigation whatsoever into what were clearly false allegations they intentionally included in highly publicized court documents."

Exhibit A (not that exciting ha): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.420.1.pdf

If you were the poster earlier who was saying that they are seeding in stuff about Freedman before Liman rules on the motion on his law firm, that random email chain might be another example of randomly throwing in how BF talks to the press. This suggests Sloane and Lively do coordinate.

[Anonymous]

JB supporters have sounded the alarm bells on how sketchy Liman is. I don't care if he's a federal judge, as if a judge's work is sacrosanct. LOL.