Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You seem to be missing some words. No one is getting discovery related to HW. |
Anonymous
I’d give her lawyers a C, and that’s being generous. It was over reaching to seek the gag order, which they didn’t get and even worse to try to prevent Freedman from being the one deposing Blake. They clearly have no control of their client. The judge rewarded them by denying their request for a three week extension to file an amended complaint and instead giving them a day. Clearly he’s not happy with them. The Complaint is also just problematic, they didn’t do much investigating before drafting. |
Anonymous
| Another beauty of an interview from Blake. She explains why she would rather “tweak” someone else’s work than be given a blank page. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8YaMSrt/ |
Anonymous
I agree. There is nothing concrete really about Jed. Only rumors. He will want to keep it like that. Thats part of his aura. I am sure none of the pr agents will be thrilled to hand over what they planned for Justin. One of those initial articles that had anonymous pr agents said this isn't a good for them as an industry |
Anonymous
Totally agree |
Anonymous
. I’m excited to hand over these documents to the other party suing me, said no one ever |
Anonymous
| This makes me wonder why Amber Heard didn't pursue a claim like this. I guess it's different because Depp wasn't her employer so there wasn't a retaliation angle and maybe she'd run out of money after her trial. |
Anonymous
I am sorry but Leslie and her relationship with HW will be questioned since Blake tried using Justin's PR team helping Jonny's lawyer. Freedman has already said he will be bringing that up. |
Anonymous
| who is HW? |
Anonymous
| Is HW Weinstein? I really doubt Freedman has a good argument for relevance there. |
Anonymous
Agree, that’s not going to be a subject of discovery, at least with the current complaints. |
Anonymous
Very different situations. Heard couldn't have sued for the astroturfing/smear campaign until it happened, which was during their trial. Before that she could have sued for abuse but they were already divorced, I don't think she saw it as something she wanted to get into litigation over. She wanted to speak up as a survivor which is what she did in her op-ed and that's what led Depp to sue her. So she was on the defensive from the jump. And then during their US trial, she was counter-suing him for defamation, but it was *during* the trial that the worst of the PR offensive against her happened. She did wind up testifying to it in court at the end but it wasn't really part of her suit because it hadn't happened when she filed. And then because the jury ruled that she'd defamed him by saying she was a domestic violence victim (truly an insane verdict IMO) she was in a terrible position to try and do anything about the smear campaign against her during the trial -- the public sentiment against her was overwhelming at that point and everyone had concluded she was the abuser actually, that she had BPD and nothing she said could be trusted, etc. Lively is in a different situation because of the employment relationship and because the alleged smear campaign happened before any litigation was filed. So she can actually sue for it and bring evidence about the campaign itself. Whereas the only argument Heard could make at trial (in addition to the evidence she brought to try and prove that she really had been abused) were about a few statements Depp's former lawyer had made to the Daily Mail. She did actually get a jury verdict on one of the statements and was awarded $2 million for it, but it was heavily offset by the jury declaring she'd defamed Depp in her op-ed and awarding him $15 million (reduced to a little over $10 million due to a VA statutory limit on punitive damages). I don't think Lively's argument for abuse/harassment against Baldoni is as good as Heard's was against Depp, and Heard lost that case (though, again, I think it was a horrible miscarriage of justice -- it is very obvious Depp abused her and even if *some* of the abuse was mutual, the idea that she defamed him by calling herself a DV victim in an op-ed that doesn't even name Depp is so insane). But Lively's claims regarding retaliation and the smear campaign are way better than anything Heard ever had. It's hard to compare the two situations because of all the differences in the underlying relationship and what the actual subject of the litigation is. And Heard and Lively are different -- Lively is more established than Heard and in a better, more powerful position in Hollywood. But despite those major differences, it's actually interesting (and sad) to me how much the campaign against the women is pretty much the same: she's stupid, she's the aggressor, she's manipulative, she's crazy, she has BPD, etc. It's almost uncanny. It's like it doesn't actually matter who "she" is and what happened, the mob will always point the finger at the woman and say "I saw Goody Procter with the devil." |
Anonymous
Haha no, wtf. We were discussing whether it was likely that Lively's team could get discovery of the work Nathan and Wallace did for Johnny Depp against Amber Heard, and the consensus is "probably not, tough argument for relevancy." So the idea that Baldoni's team could get discovery of work that Leslie Sloane may or may not have done for Harvey Weinstein ELEVEN YEARS AGO (Sloane hasn't worked for HW in a really long time and actually worked for women who accused him in the interim, when accusations against him were coming out, that's how distant her relationship to him had become) is insane. It's just a hard no. If Freedman is saying he will bring it up, it is the emptiest of threats. At least in court, I'm sure he wants to bring it up in the press or get it talked about on social media as a distraction item. But in legal terms, it's about as relevant as what I had for breakfast or what you do for a living. |
Anonymous
Its not an empty threat. HW helped funded Leslie's Stone company. If she continues to bring up trust Johnny then Freedman bring up HW. I trust him. The ball is in her court now |
Anonymous
What is the theory Freedman could argue that Weinstein is relevant to this case? The theory on Depp/Heard has been articulated and debated. |