Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

Are you talking about Mannatt or Wilkie? Her Wilkie attorney who is doing her court appearances used to be with Boies Schiller. He is very good. I don't know as much about her other attorneys.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has started her discovery and subpoenas with her Jed. They have asked for internet and cloud records. As i said earlier Blake is in no position to have the desire to settle. Not until she gets all of her own theories/documents out.

https://www.thewrap.com/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-text-message-subpoenas/

In other words, they have nothing at this point, but they are embarking on a fishing expedition. I can't recall how long service providers retain text records, but I don't think she'll retrieve much from 18 months ago.

1000000%. She has nothing.

Agree. Classic fishing expedition.

No it's not a fishing expedition. They know he was hired and involved in Justin PR team. They have to figure out the extent of it now. This is a perfectly normal discovery request.

When you have to ask for EVERTHING you have nothing.

That's literally how discoveries work.. These requests are regarding Jeb and the PR agents. Not Justin and the SH. She knows Jeb was hired for Justin. Thats ALL she needs to delve further using the discovery requests. People very rarely have all the exact details before discovery. Jeb will ask the same of Blake and her PR shake to try and show his strategies aren't so bad.

You are on drugs. She’ll get documents relevant to any pr work done concerning her and nothing else.

DP but... isn't that what she wants? Why would she want documents not relevant to the work Wallace did concerning Lively? I thought the whole point here was to get the work Wallace did for Baldoni about Lively.

I'm confused as to what the debate is.

There is one poster convinced that she will get info about his other clients.

They will. That's a normal part of the discovery. Their personal information will be under a protective orderb

No they won’t, it’s not relevant and unduly burdensome.

You're just throwing out words because the structure he runs the company is absolutely relevant. In the same vein Jeb will Blake's PR and her ties to HW.

Omg no. Please go back to 1L.

Another good one! Law school 101 here!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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."

Im sorry. I try really hard to be polite on here, and I’ve asked people to tone down the name calling and assorted awfulness, and Lively deserves a fair trial, and we are hard on women, but I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

We’ve been through this already, the law firms are fine but by no means top tier. Their work product thus far has confirmed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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."

I love how you ignore that the majority of this thread believes her husband is also stupid, the aggressor, an even more manipulative schemer, the power source, a megalomaniac, etc. so you can push your futile misogyny strategy.

You need to go back to slip and fall school, sweetie. This dog ain’t hunting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

We’ve been through this already, the law firms are fine but by no means top tier. Their work product thus far has confirmed that.

There are not enough eye rolls. The legal work is fine. This isn’t actually a hard case legally. Factually and strategically sure. you just sound dumb when you act like only Cravath could have handled the case lol. If anything, better to have a scrappy street fighter like Baldoni’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

We’ve been through this already, the law firms are fine but by no means top tier. Their work product thus far has confirmed that.

There are not enough eye rolls. The legal work is fine. This isn’t actually a hard case legally. Factually and strategically sure. you just sound dumb when you act like only Cravath could have handled the case lol. If anything, better to have a scrappy street fighter like Baldoni’s.

Just because you’re obnoxious doesn’t make you right. Their work in this case has been underwhelming and it’s clear that they have no control of their client. Perhaps your standards are low, but I see much better work in a regular basis.

[Anonymous]

I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Btw, I’m not rooting for either celeb, couldn’t care less about either. I’m only interested in the underlying case. And Baldoni’s team is dominating on that front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

We’ve been through this already, the law firms are fine but by no means top tier. Their work product thus far has confirmed that.

There are not enough eye rolls. The legal work is fine. This isn’t actually a hard case legally. Factually and strategically sure. you just sound dumb when you act like only Cravath could have handled the case lol. If anything, better to have a scrappy street fighter like Baldoni’s.

Just because you’re obnoxious doesn’t make you right. Their work in this case has been underwhelming and it’s clear that they have no control of their client. Perhaps your standards are low, but I see much better work in a regular basis.

Lol ok. You’re right, only Cravath will do. (PS: the client controls the case.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it all relevant that this Jed guy is suing lively for defamation or something? I mean, he clearly is pretty confident he didn’t do anything wrong. Seems like they made a mistake naming him and now he’s coming after them.

Blake’s team seems really sloppy to me from her lawyers to PR. Just from the beginning of this whole mess they should have known that they were going to be records of all this back-and-forth.

We all know it is super hard to prove sexual harassment. It’s an uphill climb for anyone. Did they just think because she’s Blake lively people would just accept her story and that Wayfarer and team wouldn’t push back at all? Just seems really delusional to me that they went down this road.

Whenever these incidents happen and I’m always so curious, is her team full of reasonable people or is she being enabled? The J Lo documentary was pretty telling because it seemed like she is actually surrounded by some reasonable people who told her this whole thing with the Ben Affleck parade and her documentary and everything was a mistake. And she just pushed forward. Really would be curious to see what the situation is with this.

I think Jed Wallace is shady and knows it would be bad for the nature of what he does to come out, whether it helps Lively's case or not. So I think the defamation suit is largely a defensive effort.

I do assume Lively is surrounded by enablers, but am not sure if that includes her legal team. Her lawyers have good reputations, they aren't known as yes men. This won't be their last case or client so I would not assume they are just doing her bidding or failing to provide good counsel.

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.

I used to work for her lawyers’ firm and am familiar with the lawyers in question. They’re very competent, but the firm represents Ryan Reynolds in a number of matters related to his investments and non-acting businesses, so I think there is probably some pressure to go along with what they want (as opposed to best legal practice).

We’ve been through this already, the law firms are fine but by no means top tier. Their work product thus far has confirmed that.

There are not enough eye rolls. The legal work is fine. This isn’t actually a hard case legally. Factually and strategically sure. you just sound dumb when you act like only Cravath could have handled the case lol. If anything, better to have a scrappy street fighter like Baldoni’s.

Just because you’re obnoxious doesn’t make you right. Their work in this case has been underwhelming and it’s clear that they have no control of their client. Perhaps your standards are low, but I see much better work in a regular basis.

Lol ok. You’re right, only Cravath will do. (PS: the client controls the case.)

When you turn over the reins to the client entirely, you lose the judge. That apparently has already happened here. Pretty darn uncommon to be denied an extension so early in the case.

I didn’t say they were doing poorly because they were a mid tier firms, it’s just not surprising to see this caliber of work from those firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.