Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See, and I read what PP posted and (except for not knowing as much about the logistics of the Heard/Depp trial etc) basically agreed with her on everything, especially the part about somehow both Heard and Lively are getting the same BS thrown at them by educated people who know better re her being stupid, manipulative, crazy, BPD, she's the aggressor etc - it's like there's a script for this somewhere and people are reading off it. Women be crazy amirite? But haha you're throwing up in your mouth a little so isn't it weird how different people see things differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Blake had that meeting to discuss the 17 points (95 theses lol) and the rider she wanted before she returned to set after the strike, was she represented by the same law firm? I give them more leeway if they were brought in later and found her claims credible as she described them.

Maybe, but dropping that footnote in the Complaint about "general practice" for partial nudity sends the signal that what she was actually wearing in the scene was not problematic. If they knew she was overstating that claim, they probably should have looked more closely at everything else.

PP and that's fair (and definitely don't want to get into "thin strip of fabric" debate!). But I'm thinking more along the lines of the dance scene. If they knew the facts as they were shown in Baldoni's video, then writing that allegation was outright fraud. I'm sort of assuming they were going off her narrative with nothing to contradict it.

it’s not fraud. It just shows that the interpretation is extremely subjective - ie an interpretation of facts. Yes they probably were NOT happy when they saw it. But overheated allegations that are one-sided are actually the nature of sexual harassment complaints. Blake will say the video clearly shows she is uneasy and trying to fend him off and that leaning in for the kiss was not planned. The truth is her firm is not low-tier enough because if it was a brawler firm it would know quite well what the score is. The idea that a classier firm would have handled it better is a joke.

This is spot on and it's a relief to see a take like this on here, I thought I was going crazy. I also think people have misinterpreted the line from her complaint about how they weren't recording sound. Freedman's response was all "ohoho she thought they didn't record sound so she could lie, but jokes on her" and a lot of people have parroted that. But the point in saying the scene was recorded without sound was to emphasize that they were not saying lines or speaking to one another in character (which they weren't), thus why Lively found his "you smell good" comment to cross a line. I do think her version of events is exaggerated (her complaint even quotes him as saying "you smell so good" and he doesn't say the "so" in the clip which changes the tone slightly, though I believe she remembered it that way and was not trying to be intentionally misleading). But it's not false. It's just open to multiple interpretations.

I also assume that Freedman released the bit of footage that was most advantageous to their case, which is one reason that I didn't read as much into that scene as others seem to, even though I agree it doesn't really help her case. Her complaint mentions scenes where she felt Baldoni crossed a line in doing unscripted intimacy, in particularly the scene where she alleges he bit and sucked her lip and insisted on multiple takes to improvise it over and over. Baldoni's defense to this is that Lively improvised kisses in another scene. I think it's interesting that they chose not to release that footage, which obviously they have. Perhaps it backs up Baldoni's side and there's a reason that they didn't release it. But I tend to think what they've released is one of the more ambiguous incidents from the set and that it's likely he did other things on set that would give people more pause. But we'll see. Maybe they also have footage of Lively being a nightmare on set (though, again, if they had it, I am shocked it hasn't already been leaked).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what else comes out. I agree with PP that while the perception might be that Baldoni is running away with it, the reality is more mixed and Lively's lawyers have done a perfectly fine job on the lawyering so far, if not on the PR game.

I was initially sympathetic to Lively, but I just can't see any credible interpretation of "you smell good" other than that it was in response to Lively mentioning her body makeup/spray tan smelled bad. I have read theories on here that maybe she was uncomfortable and trying to say and do things to distract him, and maybe she was, but the pleadings don't describe it that way. They imply that he, out of the blue, said this, implying a sexual context directed at her as an actress and not her character, which is very misleading even though they do so using all factually true statements (except the "so" in front of "good" which isn't a big deal IMO). It is extremely dishonest. However, I do assume it is her doing the misleading and not the law firm, and I don't care to comment on the quality of the law firms because fangirling and dissing law firms in a celebrity case is ridiculous.


For your second paragraph, I have wondered the same, if perhaps Baldoni released his one really big strong piece of discrediting evidence, because the rest isn't as strong. I have not been particularly convinced by all of the analysis of the text messages in his timeline. This could be a good strategy or a bad one. Good in that this particular incident I find so outrageous on Lively's part that it makes me inclined to believe his other explanations (the set was closed, the casting of the OB, etc). On the other hand, it's bad in that he's set a high standard of him having video evidence negating her claims, and so far the website AFAIK only posted his timeline which is mostly the same stuff as his previous filings, but no other huge bombshells. There was also that weird voicemail which amounted to nothing. But maybe he's holding things back for trial. Who knows! It makes the case interesting, and I'm not rooting for either one of them at this point. I really have tried to read both their filings with an open mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

Agree 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

That's a strange interpretation of my comment when I specifically said "You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time" and then said that "losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case." FWIW, in the litigations I work on, most of the parties file dozens of motions before the end of the case, and guess what -- I don't think I've ever been on a case where one party wins all the motions it files, have you? Sometimes there is not even a clear winner on certain motions and the judge is just splitting the baby. So to approach the whole thing like there is no overall strategy besides winning individual motions is kind of the strange way of doing things. Yes, you want the judge to trust that you have good judgment. But, you can educate the judge (especially if it's an area of the law they don't have much trial experience on) and do that at the same time.

On preview: Of course someone agrees with you and that is the entire substance of their comment, despite your absolute strawman interpretation of what I said. lol

[Anonymous]

DP I can see where the motion for the gag order was to have a chilling effect on Freedman and serve as a warning that they will fight if he leaks more footage and they wanted to get it on the record that they've already filed a motion on this. I don't think that was a terrible strategy. The motion asking for Freedman not to depose her, OTOH, does not appear to have sound logic behind it. This is not an endorsement of either side's legal team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

That's a strange interpretation of my comment when I specifically said "You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time" and then said that "losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case." FWIW, in the litigations I work on, most of the parties file dozens of motions before the end of the case, and guess what -- I don't think I've ever been on a case where one party wins all the motions it files, have you? Sometimes there is not even a clear winner on certain motions and the judge is just splitting the baby. So to approach the whole thing like there is no overall strategy besides winning individual motions is kind of the strange way of doing things. Yes, you want the judge to trust that you have good judgment. But, you can educate the judge (especially if it's an area of the law they don't have much trial experience on) and do that at the same time.

On preview: Of course someone agrees with you and that is the entire substance of their comment, despite your absolute strawman interpretation of what I said. lol

This is my question for you - if you are actually a litigator how do you post nonstop on dcum? You post all day and night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

That's a strange interpretation of my comment when I specifically said "You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time" and then said that "losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case." FWIW, in the litigations I work on, most of the parties file dozens of motions before the end of the case, and guess what -- I don't think I've ever been on a case where one party wins all the motions it files, have you? Sometimes there is not even a clear winner on certain motions and the judge is just splitting the baby. So to approach the whole thing like there is no overall strategy besides winning individual motions is kind of the strange way of doing things. Yes, you want the judge to trust that you have good judgment. But, you can educate the judge (especially if it's an area of the law they don't have much trial experience on) and do that at the same time.

On preview: Of course someone agrees with you and that is the entire substance of their comment, despite your absolute strawman interpretation of what I said. lol

Most cases I work on don’t involve a lot of motions unless they actually go to trial and I would put pretrial motions in a separate category. Also, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between motions you know you are likely to lose and frivolous motions. What area of law do you practice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

That's a strange interpretation of my comment when I specifically said "You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time" and then said that "losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case." FWIW, in the litigations I work on, most of the parties file dozens of motions before the end of the case, and guess what -- I don't think I've ever been on a case where one party wins all the motions it files, have you? Sometimes there is not even a clear winner on certain motions and the judge is just splitting the baby. So to approach the whole thing like there is no overall strategy besides winning individual motions is kind of the strange way of doing things. Yes, you want the judge to trust that you have good judgment. But, you can educate the judge (especially if it's an area of the law they don't have much trial experience on) and do that at the same time.

On preview: Of course someone agrees with you and that is the entire substance of their comment, despite your absolute strawman interpretation of what I said. lol

This is my question for you - if you are actually a litigator how do you post nonstop on dcum? You post all day and night.

Pretty sure this is my third comment today. My question for you is why you are always making things so personal, when it's been specifically requested that you do not? Please stop. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Fourth comment, sorry. Now this is my fifth!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

No there really are not. judge won’t look at your case until motions are filed. The gag order motion got Lively what she wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

No there really are not. judge won’t look at your case until motions are filed. The gag order motion got Lively what she wanted.

Not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

No there really are not. judge won’t look at your case until motions are filed. The gag order motion got Lively what she wanted.

There is not a need to educate the judge about your case. If a dispositive motion is filed or it goes to trial, that’s when they learn about the case. No judge wants to receive a bunch of small “motions” that the moving party is unlikely to win. I find it hard to believe any real attorney would believe this, and I am a different poster than the one who asked how you can be a working lawyer and post here so frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

No there really are not. judge won’t look at your case until motions are filed. The gag order motion got Lively what she wanted.

There is not a need to educate the judge about your case. If a dispositive motion is filed or it goes to trial, that’s when they learn about the case. No judge wants to receive a bunch of small “motions” that the moving party is unlikely to win. I find it hard to believe any real attorney would believe this, and I am a different poster than the one who asked how you can be a working lawyer and post here so frequently.

I totally agree with this and I’m only posting one sentence saying so, because there is no need for me to elaborate when PP said it so well.