Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to the hearing and they came up with a compromise where all discovery related to requests that have already been issued will be due by the already proposed date of July 25th.

Lively had wanted another deadline for add-on discovery of September 30th. Liman was not keen on that, and everyone agreed to a later discovery deadline of Friday, August 15 for additional discovery that is just being propounded now, especially on third parties. So they will have to get those requests in right away to make that work.

Bender asked for permission to file for additional discovery from info learned at depositions if they can show good cause, and Liman said hey yes but you will have to follow what the Rules say in showing good cause etc. (FURRY PUPPET STUDIO HELLO AGAIN!)

The most amusing part of the hearing for me was when Liman asked Fritz whether he could live with these deadlines and Fritz said yes and then started going off on a tangent re the Google subpoenas and Liman interrupted him and explained there would be another more appropriate time where all the parties would provide their own versions of the facts as they wanted the judge to understand them but right now this was really just a scheduling conference. Like, Liman's version of "Sir, this is a Wendy's." lol

Freedman was reportedly on the call but did not say a word afaict.

And yet he let Blake’s lawyer drone on and on. Doesn’t even attempt to hide his bias.

Bender was only directly addressing the specific questions Liman asked her. She was trying to explain why they wanted the extra time, and then trying to work out the details of the compromise that. She wasn't, like, bringing up the outstanding film requests or talking about why they shouldn't turn over Lively's financial records etc. She was ordering items that were on Judge Liman's menu, and Fritz was attempting to order items that were off menu, and Liman was explaining he didn't have time for off menu items today.

Sure, Jan.

The above is definitely right. JB’s lawyer tried to talk about stuff that wasn’t on the agenda for this hearing. Of course he was shut down. When you pretend otherwise, you just come across as ridiculous.

Liman is biased in favor of lawyers who follow rules and make cogent arguments that actually relate to the matter at hand.

THE INJUSTICE.

Right, that’s why he’s biased towards the lawyers who filed the sham lawsuit, and lied for three days about whether they issued subpoenas to google.

When did Blake's lawyers lie about subpoenas to Google? I didn't see that.

You would have, if the pro-Lively user didn't clog this thread with posts about Freedman.

Esra Hudson is really something, and by something, not very ethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to the hearing and they came up with a compromise where all discovery related to requests that have already been issued will be due by the already proposed date of July 25th.

Lively had wanted another deadline for add-on discovery of September 30th. Liman was not keen on that, and everyone agreed to a later discovery deadline of Friday, August 15 for additional discovery that is just being propounded now, especially on third parties. So they will have to get those requests in right away to make that work.

Bender asked for permission to file for additional discovery from info learned at depositions if they can show good cause, and Liman said hey yes but you will have to follow what the Rules say in showing good cause etc. (FURRY PUPPET STUDIO HELLO AGAIN!)

The most amusing part of the hearing for me was when Liman asked Fritz whether he could live with these deadlines and Fritz said yes and then started going off on a tangent re the Google subpoenas and Liman interrupted him and explained there would be another more appropriate time where all the parties would provide their own versions of the facts as they wanted the judge to understand them but right now this was really just a scheduling conference. Like, Liman's version of "Sir, this is a Wendy's." lol

Freedman was reportedly on the call but did not say a word afaict.

And yet he let Blake’s lawyer drone on and on. Doesn’t even attempt to hide his bias.

Bender was only directly addressing the specific questions Liman asked her. She was trying to explain why they wanted the extra time, and then trying to work out the details of the compromise that. She wasn't, like, bringing up the outstanding film requests or talking about why they shouldn't turn over Lively's financial records etc. She was ordering items that were on Judge Liman's menu, and Fritz was attempting to order items that were off menu, and Liman was explaining he didn't have time for off menu items today.

Sure, Jan.

The above is definitely right. JB’s lawyer tried to talk about stuff that wasn’t on the agenda for this hearing. Of course he was shut down. When you pretend otherwise, you just come across as ridiculous.

Liman is biased in favor of lawyers who follow rules and make cogent arguments that actually relate to the matter at hand.

THE INJUSTICE.

Right, that’s why he’s biased towards the lawyers who filed the sham lawsuit, and lied for three days about whether they issued subpoenas to google.

When did Blake's lawyers lie about subpoenas to Google? I didn't see that.

You would have, if the pro-Lively user didn't clog this thread with posts about Freedman.

Esra Hudson is really something, and by something, not very ethical.

You know, Gottlieb seems to think Freedman is unethical and so he is making an effort to prove that to the court. He has actually made it a part of Lively’s case, alleging the smear is ongoing, and that Freedman participated in, and is thus attempting to compel production of his communications. He was concerned for Lively’s safety at her upcoming deposition, and filed with Judge Liman the declaration re Freedman’s cursing out and fake-punch of his opposing counsel that occurred only 2 weeks ago. And in part as a result, Lively can now take her dep on her home turf.

So if Hudson is actually bad, maybe Baldoni’s attorneys really should be doing something more than sitting on their hands about it for two months before eventually filing only a motion to compel documents. Which may get mooted anyway, if Abel’s related claims are dismissed from the suit. 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Case against Wallace has been dismissed according to Reddit. He was the linchpin for the “untraceable smear campaign”. She’s going to have an even harder time proving any retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Case against Wallace has been dismissed according to Reddit. He was the linchpin for the “untraceable smear campaign”. She’s going to have an even harder time proving any retaliation.

She can file in Texas which she didn’t want to do or try again to file in New York and provide more arguments for why NY has jurisdiction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.426.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Oh, you know Liman hated doing this. Of course it’s without prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Case against Wallace has been dismissed according to Reddit. He was the linchpin for the “untraceable smear campaign”. She’s going to have an even harder time proving any retaliation.

Makes Liman’s decision to require Wallace to release his client list even more troubling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

[Anonymous]

What advantages does Jed have if Blake tries to sue him in Texas?

No Liman, which is great, but what else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What advantages does Jed have if Blake tries to sue him in Texas?

No Liman, which is great, but what else?

I thought he already brought an action against Blake in Texas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

Actually, it’s a fishing expedition. A judge without bias would have granted Wallace’s motion for a protective order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case against Wallace has been dismissed according to Reddit. He was the linchpin for the “untraceable smear campaign”. She’s going to have an even harder time proving any retaliation.

She can file in Texas which she didn’t want to do or try again to file in New York and provide more arguments for why NY has jurisdiction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.426.0.pdf

Right - just to be clear, the claims are not being dismissed because they fail to state a claim (as Baldoni's complaint was), but because Liman says the NY court lacks personal jurisdiction over these claims against Texas resident Wallace, and because Lively did not convincingly tie any of Wallaces actions to NY itself so as to give the state jurisdiction over Wallace. It was necessary to allow some discovery to determine whether jurisdiction existed, and now that discovery has been completed, so Lively has until July 30th to refile the complaint in SDNY if she wishes (rather than in TX), limited purely to those claims that already existed in her prior complaint.

My own personal theory is that Wallace says he was in NY for a week from December 9 to December 16, 2024, but that he didn't do any work on that trip, and that his work on Baldoni concluded in November 2024. I'd be surprised if it really stopped in November, and if Wallace is in charge of Street Relations I would fully expect he conducted some work during his vacation in early December, less than a month after he says his work on Baldoni stopped. Just my theory!