Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everybody gets a one day dep under the federal rules unless there is cause for additional time.

Liman caused this pile up inadvertently by releasing his Wallace decision today.

Am I correct that Fritz was not agreeing to reserve any portion of the 7 hours for Wallace if Wallace came back in to the case? That was said on Reddit. If so, that was strategic from Fritz because he didn’t want to lose any of his time. Which he would have been losing as of yesterday, when Wallace was still in the case.

Likewise, Lively doesn’t want to be deposed any longer than necessary lol.

Wallace being in weird party/non party limbo caused the issue. Liman seemed to want to find a way for everyone to depose Lively tomorrow to stick to the schedule (THE SCHEDULE ABOVE ALL!!!) but couldn’t work out a way that was legally defensible. Could he have ordered, under the rules, for the dep to proceed without Wallace, and Wallace to convene later if he was still in the case, in excess of seven hours? That’s the only other solution I’m aware of besides what they did. Is the fact that he didn’t do that what others are saying is unfair? Would you be okay with Baldoni’s or Heath’s deps being extended in the same way?

This is incorrect. The judge offered and Babcock agreed to a dummy complaint against Wallace. In that scenario, he asked if Gottlieb added new claims to a subsequent complaint, he get a chance to depose Blake in the future on those claims, IF ANY, only. This was the solution that made sense, and Gottlieb would not agree to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: what’s stopping Liman from doing whatever he wants? Like I could easily have seen him not dismissing Wallace

Most of these discovery decisions are not appealable, but that would have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: what’s stopping Liman from doing whatever he wants? Like I could easily have seen him not dismissing Wallace

Most of these discovery decisions are not appealable, but that would have been.

Should clarify, most are not independently and immediately appealable, but a motion to dismiss is. The Appeals Court has discretion to accept such an appeal, which is called interlocutory review.

However the entire course of judicial conduct or errors can be the subject of an appeal if it materially affects the outcome of a case, but that wouldn’t come until after trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: what’s stopping Liman from doing whatever he wants? Like I could easily have seen him not dismissing Wallace

Most of these discovery decisions are not appealable, but that would have been.

Should clarify, most are not independently and immediately appealable, but a motion to dismiss is. The Appeals Court has discretion to accept such an appeal, which is called interlocutory review.

However the entire course of judicial conduct or errors can be the subject of an appeal if it materially affects the outcome of a case, but that wouldn’t come until after trial.

Wow, what a coincidence that the one major decision favorable to the WF parties/Jed Wallace is the one that’s immediately repealable…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody gets a one day dep under the federal rules unless there is cause for additional time.

Liman caused this pile up inadvertently by releasing his Wallace decision today.

Am I correct that Fritz was not agreeing to reserve any portion of the 7 hours for Wallace if Wallace came back in to the case? That was said on Reddit. If so, that was strategic from Fritz because he didn’t want to lose any of his time. Which he would have been losing as of yesterday, when Wallace was still in the case.

Likewise, Lively doesn’t want to be deposed any longer than necessary lol.

Wallace being in weird party/non party limbo caused the issue. Liman seemed to want to find a way for everyone to depose Lively tomorrow to stick to the schedule (THE SCHEDULE ABOVE ALL!!!) but couldn’t work out a way that was legally defensible. Could he have ordered, under the rules, for the dep to proceed without Wallace, and Wallace to convene later if he was still in the case, in excess of seven hours? That’s the only other solution I’m aware of besides what they did. Is the fact that he didn’t do that what others are saying is unfair? Would you be okay with Baldoni’s or Heath’s deps being extended in the same way?

This is incorrect. The judge offered and Babcock agreed to a dummy complaint against Wallace. In that scenario, he asked if Gottlieb added new claims to a subsequent complaint, he get a chance to depose Blake in the future on those claims, IF ANY, only. This was the solution that made sense, and Gottlieb would not agree to it.

Everyone was being mildly inflexible, and that's what led to the postponement. Babcock actually pushed back a bit on the "dummy complaint" suggestion (he's the one who said "depends on how stupid it is" which was funny) because he really only wants to depose Blake after the SAC. Which is reasonable, but means a delay. Blake doesn't want to delay her deposition (she's probably been in full prep mode for at least a week, so delaying last second is a mental and scheduling annoyance) but also doesn't want to sit for two depositions, for the same reason. All of that is also reasonable despite what pro-JB people will say (Baldoni would also push back against being deposed twice for the same reasons). And Wayfarer doesn't want to give up any of their time to Babcock.

So the only possible solution was to push it back even though that's not really what anyone but Babcock wanted. This is being portrayed as Lively trying to get out of her depo, which makes no sense, she's going to be deposed and that was always the case, you cannot bring a lawsuit and then avoid deposition. Or as Gottlieb being unreasonable on multiple depositions but no lawyer agrees to multiple depos for their client without extraordinary circumstances -- I'm talking an earthquake or something, not a procedural quandary posed by a judge dismissing one defendant without prejudice at a bad time. Freedman/Fritz and Babcock would also refuse to have their clients deposed multiple times. The rules allow parties to push back on that so they will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

Sorry any thinking person disagrees with you.

So then how come it doesn't represent bias? That's what I thought.

Because Lively doesn't want to postpone the deposition, and now it's postponed. Gottlieb lobbied to proceed with he deposition as scheduled but find a way to get Wallace temporarily back in the case (via a dummy complaint or having Liman temporarily vacate the dismissal) so that Babcock could participate in the deposition and they could do it this week, one time.

But Babcock reasonably doesn't want to do his portion of the deposition until he's seen the actual SAC, so it's postponed. It's a win for Wallace, a negative for Lively (perhaps not as bad as having to sit for two depositions, but not a win), and maybe neutral for Wayfarer.

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted? Also, ultimately the decision wasn't even made by Liman here. He deferred to the party and they decided, via a meet and confer, that the best option was to delay the deposition until after the SAC. Liman signed off on that but he didn't force it on them. He didn't really advocate for any one solution in the hearing either, he was just kind of acting as a broker, suggesting possible solutions and acknowledging that the issue had been caused by the timing of his dismissal. Had he dismissed last week, Lively could have put together an SAC quickly before the deposition, but the late hour made that impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody gets a one day dep under the federal rules unless there is cause for additional time.

Liman caused this pile up inadvertently by releasing his Wallace decision today.

Am I correct that Fritz was not agreeing to reserve any portion of the 7 hours for Wallace if Wallace came back in to the case? That was said on Reddit. If so, that was strategic from Fritz because he didn’t want to lose any of his time. Which he would have been losing as of yesterday, when Wallace was still in the case.

Likewise, Lively doesn’t want to be deposed any longer than necessary lol.

Wallace being in weird party/non party limbo caused the issue. Liman seemed to want to find a way for everyone to depose Lively tomorrow to stick to the schedule (THE SCHEDULE ABOVE ALL!!!) but couldn’t work out a way that was legally defensible. Could he have ordered, under the rules, for the dep to proceed without Wallace, and Wallace to convene later if he was still in the case, in excess of seven hours? That’s the only other solution I’m aware of besides what they did. Is the fact that he didn’t do that what others are saying is unfair? Would you be okay with Baldoni’s or Heath’s deps being extended in the same way?

This is incorrect. The judge offered and Babcock agreed to a dummy complaint against Wallace. In that scenario, he asked if Gottlieb added new claims to a subsequent complaint, he get a chance to depose Blake in the future on those claims, IF ANY, only. This was the solution that made sense, and Gottlieb would not agree to it.

Everyone was being mildly inflexible, and that's what led to the postponement. Babcock actually pushed back a bit on the "dummy complaint" suggestion (he's the one who said "depends on how stupid it is" which was funny) because he really only wants to depose Blake after the SAC. Which is reasonable, but means a delay. Blake doesn't want to delay her deposition (she's probably been in full prep mode for at least a week, so delaying last second is a mental and scheduling annoyance) but also doesn't want to sit for two depositions, for the same reason. All of that is also reasonable despite what pro-JB people will say (Baldoni would also push back against being deposed twice for the same reasons). And Wayfarer doesn't want to give up any of their time to Babcock.

So the only possible solution was to push it back even though that's not really what anyone but Babcock wanted. This is being portrayed as Lively trying to get out of her depo, which makes no sense, she's going to be deposed and that was always the case, you cannot bring a lawsuit and then avoid deposition. Or as Gottlieb being unreasonable on multiple depositions but no lawyer agrees to multiple depos for their client without extraordinary circumstances -- I'm talking an earthquake or something, not a procedural quandary posed by a judge dismissing one defendant without prejudice at a bad time. Freedman/Fritz and Babcock would also refuse to have their clients deposed multiple times. The rules allow parties to push back on that so they will.

Yes, hard agree on ALL OF THIS, thank you! Honestly, if Lively had wanted to postpone the dep, Gottlieb would have acquiesced to Garofalo (I disagree with the PP who thought Gottlieb kinda wanted to delay but didn't want to make it look like it was their responsibility. No. He threatened sanctions! That's not someone who wants to push this off.).

Frankly, this really, really helps Baldoni's team if they are switching up the attorney who is taking this dep and decided that switch recently. They now have a lot more time to prepare. And if it's still Freedman, that's probably still helpful because he gets more time to distance himself from whatever weird crisis he was going through in late June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

Sorry any thinking person disagrees with you.

So then how come it doesn't represent bias? That's what I thought.

Because Lively doesn't want to postpone the deposition, and now it's postponed. Gottlieb lobbied to proceed with he deposition as scheduled but find a way to get Wallace temporarily back in the case (via a dummy complaint or having Liman temporarily vacate the dismissal) so that Babcock could participate in the deposition and they could do it this week, one time.

But Babcock reasonably doesn't want to do his portion of the deposition until he's seen the actual SAC, so it's postponed. It's a win for Wallace, a negative for Lively (perhaps not as bad as having to sit for two depositions, but not a win), and maybe neutral for Wayfarer.

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted? Also, ultimately the decision wasn't even made by Liman here. He deferred to the party and they decided, via a meet and confer, that the best option was to delay the deposition until after the SAC. Liman signed off on that but he didn't force it on them. He didn't really advocate for any one solution in the hearing either, he was just kind of acting as a broker, suggesting possible solutions and acknowledging that the issue had been caused by the timing of his dismissal. Had he dismissed last week, Lively could have put together an SAC quickly before the deposition, but the late hour made that impossible.

Is SAC a motion to compel? What does SA stand for?

[Anonymous]

DP

SAC = Second Amended Complaint (here, Lively's SAC a/g Wallace/Street Relations).

[Anonymous]

Lively definitely wanted to postpone the deposition, don’t insult our intelligence. Gottlieb shut down every other option at the hearing. Babcock wanted to go ahead with it, was already in route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody gets a one day dep under the federal rules unless there is cause for additional time.

Liman caused this pile up inadvertently by releasing his Wallace decision today.

Am I correct that Fritz was not agreeing to reserve any portion of the 7 hours for Wallace if Wallace came back in to the case? That was said on Reddit. If so, that was strategic from Fritz because he didn’t want to lose any of his time. Which he would have been losing as of yesterday, when Wallace was still in the case.

Likewise, Lively doesn’t want to be deposed any longer than necessary lol.

Wallace being in weird party/non party limbo caused the issue. Liman seemed to want to find a way for everyone to depose Lively tomorrow to stick to the schedule (THE SCHEDULE ABOVE ALL!!!) but couldn’t work out a way that was legally defensible. Could he have ordered, under the rules, for the dep to proceed without Wallace, and Wallace to convene later if he was still in the case, in excess of seven hours? That’s the only other solution I’m aware of besides what they did. Is the fact that he didn’t do that what others are saying is unfair? Would you be okay with Baldoni’s or Heath’s deps being extended in the same way?

This is incorrect. The judge offered and Babcock agreed to a dummy complaint against Wallace. In that scenario, he asked if Gottlieb added new claims to a subsequent complaint, he get a chance to depose Blake in the future on those claims, IF ANY, only. This was the solution that made sense, and Gottlieb would not agree to it.

Everyone was being mildly inflexible, and that's what led to the postponement. Babcock actually pushed back a bit on the "dummy complaint" suggestion (he's the one who said "depends on how stupid it is" which was funny) because he really only wants to depose Blake after the SAC. Which is reasonable, but means a delay. Blake doesn't want to delay her deposition (she's probably been in full prep mode for at least a week, so delaying last second is a mental and scheduling annoyance) but also doesn't want to sit for two depositions, for the same reason. All of that is also reasonable despite what pro-JB people will say (Baldoni would also push back against being deposed twice for the same reasons). And Wayfarer doesn't want to give up any of their time to Babcock.

So the only possible solution was to push it back even though that's not really what anyone but Babcock wanted. This is being portrayed as Lively trying to get out of her depo, which makes no sense, she's going to be deposed and that was always the case, you cannot bring a lawsuit and then avoid deposition. Or as Gottlieb being unreasonable on multiple depositions but no lawyer agrees to multiple depos for their client without extraordinary circumstances -- I'm talking an earthquake or something, not a procedural quandary posed by a judge dismissing one defendant without prejudice at a bad time. Freedman/Fritz and Babcock would also refuse to have their clients deposed multiple times. The rules allow parties to push back on that so they will.

Yes, hard agree on ALL OF THIS, thank you! Honestly, if Lively had wanted to postpone the dep, Gottlieb would have acquiesced to Garofalo (I disagree with the PP who thought Gottlieb kinda wanted to delay but didn't want to make it look like it was their responsibility. No. He threatened sanctions! That's not someone who wants to push this off.).

Frankly, this really, really helps Baldoni's team if they are switching up the attorney who is taking this dep and decided that switch recently. They now have a lot more time to prepare. And if it's still Freedman, that's probably still helpful because he gets more time to distance himself from whatever weird crisis he was going through in late June.

Guess Lively headquarters finally sent out new talking points and they remain utter bullshit that are entirely inconsistent with what occurred at the hearing. Try again, ladies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this actually help Lively? I thought Lively wanted to hold fast to tomorrow' dep so that Baldoni's team would have to scramble to get the dep together after they had barely two weeks to review all the docs. Garofalo wanted to postpone it and Gottlieb threatened sanctions so I don't think Gottlieb wanted this, honestly.

Is it purely that Wallace wouldn't be able to join the dep if he were no longer a party, and then if he were back to being a party two weeks from now, he'd get to depose her again briefly, for, like, an hour? I almost think it would have been better to proceed with the dep by Wayfarer and have Wallace do a separate add on later if needed, for an hour.

If this were me, I'd just want to get it over with, but ymmv.

This. I don't think Lively wanted to postpone. But if they did the depo tomorrow without Wallace, she'd have to be re-deposed later if they refile against Wallace. So they were looking for a way to get Wallace back in the case just to facilitate him coming to the depo (either filing a "dummy" complaint they would amend later or Liman temporarily vacating his dismissal just for the depo).

But they would need Wayfarer to agree to that, and they wouldn't, so the deposition is postponed because that was the only option they could get everyone to agree to.

The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

I'm PP this person was responding to and agree with all of this, but especially the bolded part. And the insistence by Baldoni supporters on some bias here, which is a misread, shows that they will continue to read this judge wrong again and again. Bringing snide insinuations about celebrity into it was not going to help that hearing move forward in any way and Liman was shutting that down, as is his job, to try to make the parties actually get somewhere and agree on something. It was like Fritz trying to bring up the Google subpoenas the other day which was not on that day's menu. Judges do not have time for this BS and it's ridiculous for Liman to need to instruct Fritz to try to help solve the problem instead of try to make his dumb and petty points for the lulz.

And yet Team Baldoni continues to eat this up and come back for thirds. So they will continue to misread the standard of civility that is required in federal court, and required particularly by Liman, the judge in the case that they are required to deal with. So good luck with that, Team Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively definitely wanted to postpone the deposition, don’t insult our intelligence. Gottlieb shut down every other option at the hearing. Babcock wanted to go ahead with it, was already in route.

Why did Gottlieb then threaten to file sanctions against Garofalo if she tried to delay the deposition that Gottlieb really deep in his heart wanted so very much to delay. It makes no sense, but you don't care about that.

[Anonymous]

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.