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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

Pp. I don't think Ryan would have changed anything in the dance scene because IMO, in the video, Justin is literally doing nothing wrong. I think he would act the same in front of her husband because in the video he acts like a man who knows he is being filmed. Which he is. You are probably one of the people who thinks Blake was uncomfortable and pulling away, and I won't presume to read her mind, but objectively that doesn't meet a reasonable person standard. Birth scene, I don't know because their accounts differ and the only other person who spoke out is his actor friend. Would need to see video or hear from someone on the crew who is neutral or works with Blake like her assistant.

“Objectively that doesn’t meet a reasonable person standard” lol 👌

Yes? That's literally what the reasonable person standard is. And you know my post was much more sympathetic to Lively than most posters here would be.

Reasonable person is the standard, but to insist that YOU are the reasonable person here is what I find funny.

But if you were the person saying that someone could think his behavior in the video wasn’t bad but that his behavior AFTER the video when she talked to him about it was bad, I do agree with that also.

Why would one believe her account of what happened after the video when her recounting of what was said during the scene was proven inaccurate by the video footage?

Right: "you smell good" vs. "you smell SO good" is clearly a hanging offense!!!

Agree with this. Yes the video looks a little different from what she described in her complaint. But not dramatically so and she seems to have remembered the incident with quite a bit of accuracy, especially given that she clearly did not have access to the video footage. Nothing in the video makes me look at her complaint and say "she lied!"

The video did change my perception of that incident, which is a good thing. More information is always better. From reading Lively's complaint, I thought the incident sounded weird and uncomfortable but I also couldn't understand Baldoni's motivations. He seemed erratic an off-putting in a way that was hard to imagine. After watching the video, I better understood his behavior. He is irritated with her. I still think his behavior is inappropriate, simply because it is not appropriate to force a costar into being more physically intimate in a scene than they want to be, without further discussion beforehand. But he's not doing it because he's coming onto her. I think he is trying to exert control over the shoot and over her, and he's using the physicality to exercise his directorial control. He's annoyed with her for arguing with him and the pulling her in and nuzzling her face and neck is an expression of his annoyance.

Which is likely why it felt so hostile to Blake. And he's a director who is annoyed with his actress, with the added complication that he's IN the scene with that actress, has his arms around her, and can act out that frustration via physical "affection." That's a very uncomfortable and weird dynamic.

This tortured analysis wasn't necessary when there was no video, lol. Big mistake to include that scene in her complaint. No wonder Blake needs to see all the videos before the deposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

Pp. I don't think Ryan would have changed anything in the dance scene because IMO, in the video, Justin is literally doing nothing wrong. I think he would act the same in front of her husband because in the video he acts like a man who knows he is being filmed. Which he is. You are probably one of the people who thinks Blake was uncomfortable and pulling away, and I won't presume to read her mind, but objectively that doesn't meet a reasonable person standard. Birth scene, I don't know because their accounts differ and the only other person who spoke out is his actor friend. Would need to see video or hear from someone on the crew who is neutral or works with Blake like her assistant.

“Objectively that doesn’t meet a reasonable person standard” lol 👌

Yes? That's literally what the reasonable person standard is. And you know my post was much more sympathetic to Lively than most posters here would be.

Reasonable person is the standard, but to insist that YOU are the reasonable person here is what I find funny.

But if you were the person saying that someone could think his behavior in the video wasn’t bad but that his behavior AFTER the video when she talked to him about it was bad, I do agree with that also.

Why would one believe her account of what happened after the video when her recounting of what was said during the scene was proven inaccurate by the video footage?

Right: "you smell good" vs. "you smell SO good" is clearly a hanging offense!!!

Oh please, the issue was he said not because he was flirting but because she said her lotion smelled bad. She presented it in the original complaint completely out of context.

+10,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

Pp. I don't think Ryan would have changed anything in the dance scene because IMO, in the video, Justin is literally doing nothing wrong. I think he would act the same in front of her husband because in the video he acts like a man who knows he is being filmed. Which he is. You are probably one of the people who thinks Blake was uncomfortable and pulling away, and I won't presume to read her mind, but objectively that doesn't meet a reasonable person standard. Birth scene, I don't know because their accounts differ and the only other person who spoke out is his actor friend. Would need to see video or hear from someone on the crew who is neutral or works with Blake like her assistant.

“Objectively that doesn’t meet a reasonable person standard” lol 👌

Yes? That's literally what the reasonable person standard is. And you know my post was much more sympathetic to Lively than most posters here would be.

Reasonable person is the standard, but to insist that YOU are the reasonable person here is what I find funny.

But if you were the person saying that someone could think his behavior in the video wasn’t bad but that his behavior AFTER the video when she talked to him about it was bad, I do agree with that also.

Why would one believe her account of what happened after the video when her recounting of what was said during the scene was proven inaccurate by the video footage?

Right: "you smell good" vs. "you smell SO good" is clearly a hanging offense!!!

Agree with this. Yes the video looks a little different from what she described in her complaint. But not dramatically so and she seems to have remembered the incident with quite a bit of accuracy, especially given that she clearly did not have access to the video footage. Nothing in the video makes me look at her complaint and say "she lied!"

The video did change my perception of that incident, which is a good thing. More information is always better. From reading Lively's complaint, I thought the incident sounded weird and uncomfortable but I also couldn't understand Baldoni's motivations. He seemed erratic an off-putting in a way that was hard to imagine. After watching the video, I better understood his behavior. He is irritated with her. I still think his behavior is inappropriate, simply because it is not appropriate to force a costar into being more physically intimate in a scene than they want to be, without further discussion beforehand. But he's not doing it because he's coming onto her. I think he is trying to exert control over the shoot and over her, and he's using the physicality to exercise his directorial control. He's annoyed with her for arguing with him and the pulling her in and nuzzling her face and neck is an expression of his annoyance.

Which is likely why it felt so hostile to Blake. And he's a director who is annoyed with his actress, with the added complication that he's IN the scene with that actress, has his arms around her, and can act out that frustration via physical "affection." That's a very uncomfortable and weird dynamic.

The rest of the world feels differently. She lied and she changed her complaint. You Blake fans truly are delusional.

Nope, I agree with PP on this. "The rest of the world" you are citing are a bunch of Reddit weirdos who are consumed with this case 24/7 as well as content creators who want clicks. I'll be interested to see how it all plays with a jury who don't necessarily read gossip rags or watch 200 TikToks every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are not seeing her trying to pull away from him when he is coming in closer, and talking and talking and making eye contact to try to get him from stopping that, I don't know what to tell you.

I guess I could also ask you in turn why you would believe the guy who filed a lawsuit against the woman who claimed he had sexually harassed her, for $400 million dollars -- when such defamation lawsuits are long recognized as retaliatory attempts to shut their victims up, and when the court dismissed all of his claims in full for legal and factual deficiencies that Baldoni was warned about but failed to correct.

I already know, though: the answer will be some version of "a good man getting his good name ruined" blah blah blah. Where'd all his claims about that go, then? Oh, wait, your response to that is that clearly the judge is biased. *sigh*

He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He has not earned it.

He doesn’t need the benefit of the doubt, he has video footage that straight up showed she was lying. And she conceded the point, by amending her complaint to change that allegation. It’s called receipts.

I mean, you’d think then with all these “receipts” he supposedly has he’d have been able to make some sort of claim against Blake Lively The Total Witch, but somehow they were all judged to be meritless. It’s a mystery.

We will see what happens at trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are not seeing her trying to pull away from him when he is coming in closer, and talking and talking and making eye contact to try to get him from stopping that, I don't know what to tell you.

I guess I could also ask you in turn why you would believe the guy who filed a lawsuit against the woman who claimed he had sexually harassed her, for $400 million dollars -- when such defamation lawsuits are long recognized as retaliatory attempts to shut their victims up, and when the court dismissed all of his claims in full for legal and factual deficiencies that Baldoni was warned about but failed to correct.

I already know, though: the answer will be some version of "a good man getting his good name ruined" blah blah blah. Where'd all his claims about that go, then? Oh, wait, your response to that is that clearly the judge is biased. *sigh*

He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He has not earned it.

He doesn’t need the benefit of the doubt, he has video footage that straight up showed she was lying. And she conceded the point, by amending her complaint to change that allegation. It’s called receipts.

I mean, you’d think then with all these “receipts” he supposedly has he’d have been able to make some sort of claim against Blake Lively The Total Witch, but somehow they were all judged to be meritless. It’s a mystery.

We will see what happens at trial.

Not really. His claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. That doesn't mean her claims against him are valid. He had no real claims against her but he also has a strong defense to hers.

[Anonymous]

Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

[Anonymous]

Rephrasing my prior post: Opposition to MTQ (from Lively) due August 1 and reply responses to opposition (from creators) due August 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

I'm pro-Lively and I do honestly think at a minimum, Liman will narrow the info these CCs need to provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

Pp. I don't think Ryan would have changed anything in the dance scene because IMO, in the video, Justin is literally doing nothing wrong. I think he would act the same in front of her husband because in the video he acts like a man who knows he is being filmed. Which he is. You are probably one of the people who thinks Blake was uncomfortable and pulling away, and I won't presume to read her mind, but objectively that doesn't meet a reasonable person standard. Birth scene, I don't know because their accounts differ and the only other person who spoke out is his actor friend. Would need to see video or hear from someone on the crew who is neutral or works with Blake like her assistant.

“Objectively that doesn’t meet a reasonable person standard” lol 👌

Yes? That's literally what the reasonable person standard is. And you know my post was much more sympathetic to Lively than most posters here would be.

Reasonable person is the standard, but to insist that YOU are the reasonable person here is what I find funny.

But if you were the person saying that someone could think his behavior in the video wasn’t bad but that his behavior AFTER the video when she talked to him about it was bad, I do agree with that also.

Why would one believe her account of what happened after the video when her recounting of what was said during the scene was proven inaccurate by the video footage?

Right: "you smell good" vs. "you smell SO good" is clearly a hanging offense!!!

Oh please, the issue was he said not because he was flirting but because she said her lotion smelled bad. She presented it in the original complaint completely out of context.

+10,000

Blake lively is a proven liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

Yes he will. I have never seen anything like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

I actually don’t agree, one of Blake’s early losses was fishing expedition subpoenas to mobile providers that Liman quashed. I think Liman will quash or limit if she doesn’t have the threshold evidence.

Plus, Gottlieb appears to be mia on these subpoenas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

I'm thinking back to that crazy overbroad subpoena Lively issued early on to the phone companies and how he struck that down quickly. Yet I've become more skeptical of him the last couple of weeks, so I don't know. I guess it also depends on what Lively's justification turns out to be. He has already indicated he agrees that they can ask for smear campaign material after the filing of the CRD and lawsuit (relevant because many of the creators didn't start covering Lively until 2025!). I hope he will do the right thing by these people regardless of how they are dissing him. They're just regular people.