Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Judge said Lively refused to answer in a way that would reveal information provided to her by her lawyers and that that was wholly proper, actually, so your claim is wildly off base lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the decision yet, but, good for Liman, I was almost thinking he was going to give it to them.

As for the next thing Gottlieb requests, it looks like a doozy. First they want to strike the transcript of Lively's depo from the docket (I think they raise good points here, there was no need to post the entire, unverified transcript when citing two lines) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.540.0.pdf

Then, a big motion for sanctions against Freedman for being a big meanie https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.546.0.pdf

The docket has a zillion exhibits to TMZ, etc (#547) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Perhaps Liman will grant the motion to strike with a harsh rebuke, in lieu of actually granting the motion for sanctions, consistent with what he's done in the past.

I think they overstepped again. Proper motion would be to keep depo under seal.

This guy was totally wrong. Nope. Actually a pretty good idea to move to strike it, and it builds the narrative toward moving for sanctions. Wrong-O.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the decision yet, but, good for Liman, I was almost thinking he was going to give it to them.

As for the next thing Gottlieb requests, it looks like a doozy. First they want to strike the transcript of Lively's depo from the docket (I think they raise good points here, there was no need to post the entire, unverified transcript when citing two lines) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.540.0.pdf

Then, a big motion for sanctions against Freedman for being a big meanie https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.546.0.pdf

The docket has a zillion exhibits to TMZ, etc (#547) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Perhaps Liman will grant the motion to strike with a harsh rebuke, in lieu of actually granting the motion for sanctions, consistent with what he's done in the past.

But the depo transcript made exhibit to a letter was filed as confidential so public cannot see it so what is big deal? Does it mean if don’t strike the transcript it becomes public after the case is over? Would it be public even if case settles or just if go to court? Not following why need to strike the transcript if gen public can’t see it anyway? What is process?

Once you file something under seal here, the opposing party has a week to argue it should remain under seal and why. If they don't file anything, the doc automatically gets released. So filing the whole rough draft transcript under seal makes busy work for Lively's attys in having to, presumably, go through the whole (rough draft!!! not even proofed yet!) transcript to say what should be confidential and what can be released.

It unnecessary when Fritz was only using the dep for a 2 page pin cite. The normal practice is file just those 2 pages and any surrounding context you might need. The even *more* normal practice is NOT to file the entire transcript of a dep that is still a rough draft ASCII copy lol. They did it purely to be jerks and maybe get the dep in front of the judge, or more likely the judge's clerk. Very on brand for them.

The Lively team has been acting like jerks this whole process, love that Team Wayfarer is finally fighting back! WOO HOO!

This PP was also off in bananaland, thinking filing the dep was a good move. I was the PP patiently explaining why you shouldn't do that, and hey, guess who the judge agreed with? Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fritz responds to the motion to strike Lively's depo: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.576.0.pdf

Why even bother? Liman is going to grant her motion, right before he asks Gottlieb to join him on his family vacation at the beach house.

Dp, but right again. Liman is such a joke of a judge.

Aww, look at you, thinking this is bias and not actually a wholly sound decision. Keep thinking Wayfarer has great lawyers and is just been badly mistreated by the judge, that's really working out well for you.

You can have this meaningless rucking, team Wayfarer got what they wanted on the motion to quash. We all know Blake’s depo was a disaster by her attorneys crazy actions over the part week. But hey, you’ll always have the MTD decision and Liman’s heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fritz responds to the motion to strike Lively's depo: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.576.0.pdf

Why even bother? Liman is going to grant her motion, right before he asks Gottlieb to join him on his family vacation at the beach house.

Dp, but right again. Liman is such a joke of a judge.

Aww, look at you, thinking this is bias and not actually a wholly sound decision. Keep thinking Wayfarer has great lawyers and is just been badly mistreated by the judge, that's really working out well for you.

You can have this meaningless rucking, team Wayfarer got what they wanted on the motion to quash. We all know Blake’s depo was a disaster by her attorneys crazy actions over the part week. But hey, you’ll always have the MTD decision and Liman’s heart.

Re the MTQ, I know that's the way all the non-lawyers over on reddit are looking at the decision, but team Wayfarer very much did not get what they wanted. They need to provide an official answer re 1-4. Gottlieb didn't get what he wanted on 7-8 and can't come back, that's true. But on 5-6, the communications between WF attorneys and CCs and the media, Gottlieb totally got what he wanted. The judge said that for now, you can't get that info through the Liner Freedman firm but the WF parties have to obtain the Liner Freedman's firms records (if necessary, but they are presumed to have access to their client file) and provide you this information themselves. So Wayfarer did not want to provide that information but the court has told them to provide that information.

And you know this is really a distinction without a difference because it's really the lawyers who are going to be doing this work on Wayfarer's behalf, and not Wayfarer itself. So the court basically told Liner Freedman to provide Lively exactly the same info they didn't want to provide, except send it as though coming from Wayfarer rather than the Liner Freedman firm.

And the totally silly thing about this is that GOTTLIEB ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR THIS INFO FROM WAYFARER first. It didn't want to bother Liner Freedman. But Wayfarer said no we're not giving you that info. Well, now they are.

Sure doesn't seem like Lively's deposition was a disaster. Fritz can't even properly interpret what Lively's refusal to give him attorney client information means lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the decision yet, but, good for Liman, I was almost thinking he was going to give it to them.

As for the next thing Gottlieb requests, it looks like a doozy. First they want to strike the transcript of Lively's depo from the docket (I think they raise good points here, there was no need to post the entire, unverified transcript when citing two lines) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.540.0.pdf

Then, a big motion for sanctions against Freedman for being a big meanie https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.546.0.pdf

The docket has a zillion exhibits to TMZ, etc (#547) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Perhaps Liman will grant the motion to strike with a harsh rebuke, in lieu of actually granting the motion for sanctions, consistent with what he's done in the past.

I think they overstepped again. Proper motion would be to keep depo under seal.

This guy was totally wrong. Nope. Actually a pretty good idea to move to strike it, and it builds the narrative toward moving for sanctions. Wrong-O.

I understood the Lively side gloating when multiple Baldoni posters were insulting Lively posters as not real lawyers because they had different opinions on the defamation claims, PO, settlement, etc. It's a very bad look though to go back now and just reply to everyone who simply posted a different opinion about every order. Really OTT when this thread has been fairly amicable recently without the usual bots and shills talk. The person above you is literally just posting their opinion in a very respectful way (FTR, I'm the first PP in this chain, who thought Lively's motion to strike raised good points and that the judge would probably grant it with a rebuke, but not grant the sanctions, so I'm mostly "right" too).

Anyway, came to post this, the two lines that were unsealed: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fio1woe7hguhf1.jpeg

A lot of nothing, kind of a similar vibe as when Hudson demanded TAG unseal their list and there was only one content creator on it. This line doesn't really support Wayfarer's point at all, but a lot of posters are misinterpreting this to mean Lively admitted she has no case. It's somewhat good for Lively that out of the entire deposition this was the best thing they could pluck out for this stunt, as I'm sure they'd planned to find some excuse to post the depo in its entirety as soon as it was done. Note the use of the second person - she's answering Freedman directly about what she claims he did to her. That's even tenser than her having to be in the room with Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

One poster, multiple personas. It’s like magic.

[Anonymous]

There were lawyers that said they shouldn't have posted it as well. Idk if am team JB but they need ro thread carefully. They can and should still raise concern that the judge could be biased. If he doesn't agree to then they can ask to have him be disqualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were lawyers that said they shouldn't have posted it as well. Idk if am team JB but they need ro thread carefully. They can and should still raise concern that the judge could be biased. If he doesn't agree to then they can ask to have him be disqualified.

I thought you are saying above that WF shouldn't have posted the whole transcript, but you are also saying the judge is biased?

The judge is not biased. Baldoni's attorneys are terrible and they are giving him terrible legal advice. They're giving him great PR advice. But since he's in a legal court, he ought to find people who will focus on the legal case. Or settle.

[Anonymous]

Case and Koslow continue to produce amazing hijinks in this litigation.

New MTCs from Gottlieb seek to compel Case and Koslow to produce documents they put on their privilege log which Gottlieb argues are not really priv.

First of all, Case and Koslow both inadvertently produced many of her privileged documents in her document production, which the Lively attorneys discovered, and so stopped reading and reviewing the production on the same day in order to inform Case and Koslow, who re-produced and clawed back documents as privileged.

The docs on Case's log now include docs going back to August 2024, with Freedman, and also documents between Case and her father, and attorney, dating back to August 2024 (where it appears Case was discussing more then her own potential liability).

Case MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.585.0.pdf

Koslow MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.586.0.pdf

Roeser declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.587.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were lawyers that said they shouldn't have posted it as well. Idk if am team JB but they need ro thread carefully. They can and should still raise concern that the judge could be biased. If he doesn't agree to then they can ask to have him be disqualified.

I thought you are saying above that WF shouldn't have posted the whole transcript, but you are also saying the judge is biased?

The judge is not biased. Baldoni's attorneys are terrible and they are giving him terrible legal advice. They're giving him great PR advice. But since he's in a legal court, he ought to find people who will focus on the legal case. Or settle.

Meh, he clearly doesn’t need strong legal advice because Blake has no case - no mention of sexual harassment any more, they are doubling down on the smear campaign, it’s been a year and no evidence. They’re going with Perez Hilton being powerful enough to tank Blake brown sales? Really?? The mainstream media has turned on her. She’s getting crap headlines every few days. Shedding Instagram followers and still not an acting role in sight.

This case is a total circus.

But please, please keep posting obscure legal wins for Blake lol. As if that’s going to make a difference, she and Ryan are paying tens of millions in crisis communications and legal fees as their reputations continue to circle the drain.