Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

I really appreciate this post for the level of detail, use of sources and neutral tone. Thank you.

If you actually look at the sources, you’d see that she misrepresented them. Freedman agreed to the full extension to March 5, and asked for a similar extension for his response to the Complaint. That makes sense, if you change one date by three weeks, you need to change other dates as well. Since the judge did not agree to the March 5 date, Baldoni would not need an extension. The only party that lost this motion was Blake.

I’m PP who you’re saying misrepresented and I don’t think I did. Lively initially had a month to respond to Baldoni’s amended complaint and asked to extend that to ~45 days. I don’t know how much time Baldoni originally had to file their response but I assume that was 30 days and not the 45 that they now sought in their letter extension request. Did they originally have 45? I don’t have the case management order. And Lively did get what they requested re the March 20 MTD date, which you ignore completely.

[Anonymous]

I always thought her photos in that dress were really nice tbh, and I am not a Blake lively “fan.” Don’t understand the “slob kebab” but ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

I really appreciate this post for the level of detail, use of sources and neutral tone. Thank you.

If you actually look at the sources, you’d see that she misrepresented them. Freedman agreed to the full extension to March 5, and asked for a similar extension for his response to the Complaint. That makes sense, if you change one date by three weeks, you need to change other dates as well. Since the judge did not agree to the March 5 date, Baldoni would not need an extension. The only party that lost this motion was Blake.

I’m PP who you’re saying misrepresented and I don’t think I did. Lively initially had a month to respond to Baldoni’s amended complaint and asked to extend that to ~45 days. I don’t know how much time Baldoni originally had to file their response but I assume that was 30 days and not the 45 that they now sought in their letter extension request. Did they originally have 45? I don’t have the case management order. And Lively did get what they requested re the March 20 MTD date, which you ignore completely.

Seriously, you are just pretending not to get this, right? Baldoni’s pleading is responsive to the Amended Complaint. If the Amemded Complaint dat gets pushed back three weeks, he is going to need more time to respond. If the date the Amended Complaint doesn’t change, he doesn’t need that extra time. And if you still can’t follow, he specifically made his request conditionally on the Amended Complaint being due on March 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

I've seen it mentioned on Reddit but not here. Criticism of Baldoni doesn't get traction here.

Because it’s horseshit - unless of course you can explain the parties involved, the bases alleged, all of it. I don’t know why you’re taking up for a brassy-haired liar so don’t be shy, make those astute comparisons, build that pattern.

Lively doesn’t have anything to do with this other lawsuit, which was filed in 2020 - not sure what Lively’s hair color has to do with anything here? I guess you’re saying Baldoni’s treatment of this dude is not relevant here, though a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed against Baldoni and Wayfarer a few years before events in this case began seems relevant? As described in this subreddit, about which I know nothing beyond it seems to be very pro-Lively or anti-Baldoni, it may suggest that Baldoni has a tendency to exploit people for his and his production company’s personal gain and isn’t afraid to retaliate, especially with the weight of his backer behind him.

Let’s stick with the present. Why did BL’s lawyers represent their subpoena as seeking only non content documents when the subpoena is in no way so limited? Seems sanctionable.

Still waiting for an answer here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

Britneys old dress looks bad on BL even with panels added (I guess it’s editing…), the dimensions and beauty of the beading got screwed in the process. And her makeup makes her a twin to Guy Fawkes. Who told her she had a good stylist’s eye?

Regardless of where you stand on Baldoni/Lively, this is a weird take. Lively looks gorgeous in that dress, including her hair makeup. I don't always like Lively's styling but she nailed that one.

She never nails it and is not good looking to me, your mileage may vary. She certainly thinks she’s hot shit and thinks she has taste, but that dress looks cheap and short and straining on her. Her hair is a mess and the tones of her hair and roots don’t go together. She’s selling herself as having the skills of someone actually talented in styling, costuming, aesthetics and she is a slob kebob with terrible editing skills (rings on every finger, everything overly done).

What can I say? Some of us - not you - have taste.

I just want to post a reference photo so people understand what you are calling a "slob kebob" whose "hair is a mess":

She f’d up the dress, which is too short for her, the pattern is off, and the Tupperware chest not proportionally covered. I don’t think madame marblemouth is pretty, so sue me. With good attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

Britneys old dress looks bad on BL even with panels added (I guess it’s editing…), the dimensions and beauty of the beading got screwed in the process. And her makeup makes her a twin to Guy Fawkes. Who told her she had a good stylist’s eye?

Regardless of where you stand on Baldoni/Lively, this is a weird take. Lively looks gorgeous in that dress, including her hair makeup. I don't always like Lively's styling but she nailed that one.

She never nails it and is not good looking to me, your mileage may vary. She certainly thinks she’s hot shit and thinks she has taste, but that dress looks cheap and short and straining on her. Her hair is a mess and the tones of her hair and roots don’t go together. She’s selling herself as having the skills of someone actually talented in styling, costuming, aesthetics and she is a slob kebob with terrible editing skills (rings on every finger, everything overly done).

What can I say? Some of us - not you - have taste.

I just want to post a reference photo so people understand what you are calling a "slob kebob" whose "hair is a mess":

She f’d up the dress, which is too short for her, the pattern is off, and the Tupperware chest not proportionally covered. I don’t think madame marblemouth is pretty, so sue me. With good attorneys.

I don't even like Blake Lively but I can admit she looks gorgeous there. You're cray cray. She's objectively pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

I really appreciate this post for the level of detail, use of sources and neutral tone. Thank you.

If you actually look at the sources, you’d see that she misrepresented them. Freedman agreed to the full extension to March 5, and asked for a similar extension for his response to the Complaint. That makes sense, if you change one date by three weeks, you need to change other dates as well. Since the judge did not agree to the March 5 date, Baldoni would not need an extension. The only party that lost this motion was Blake.

I’m PP who you’re saying misrepresented and I don’t think I did. Lively initially had a month to respond to Baldoni’s amended complaint and asked to extend that to ~45 days. I don’t know how much time Baldoni originally had to file their response but I assume that was 30 days and not the 45 that they now sought in their letter extension request. Did they originally have 45? I don’t have the case management order. And Lively did get what they requested re the March 20 MTD date, which you ignore completely.

Seriously, you are just pretending not to get this, right? Baldoni’s pleading is responsive to the Amended Complaint. If the Amemded Complaint dat gets pushed back three weeks, he is going to need more time to respond. If the date the Amended Complaint doesn’t change, he doesn’t need that extra time. And if you still can’t follow, he specifically made his request conditionally on the Amended Complaint being due on March 5.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.

I don’t think Freeman was just asking for his deadline to be extended out the same number of days as Lively’s was. If you look at his letter, he asks for his response to be due about 43 days after Lively’s amended complaint then would have been due (if extension were granted). I assume they did not originally have that much time to respond — 45 days. The Federal Rules generally allow 14 days for a response to an amended complaint. I assumed Freeman had already had thirty and was asking for an additional ~15. If Freeman only had ~14 to start with then this requested movement of his deadline out ~45 days from after Lively filed the amended complaint means he would have essentially been making an extension request of about 30 days — i.e., the original 14 days he had plus another 30 days beyond that.

It’s possible he already had about 45 days to respond, but I can’t find the CMO and that seems unlikely and excessive given the dates I do know.

And your attitude here when you don’t seem to be even trying to understand what I’m saying is annoying. Calm down and read, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

Britneys old dress looks bad on BL even with panels added (I guess it’s editing…), the dimensions and beauty of the beading got screwed in the process. And her makeup makes her a twin to Guy Fawkes. Who told her she had a good stylist’s eye?

Regardless of where you stand on Baldoni/Lively, this is a weird take. Lively looks gorgeous in that dress, including her hair makeup. I don't always like Lively's styling but she nailed that one.

She never nails it and is not good looking to me, your mileage may vary. She certainly thinks she’s hot shit and thinks she has taste, but that dress looks cheap and short and straining on her. Her hair is a mess and the tones of her hair and roots don’t go together. She’s selling herself as having the skills of someone actually talented in styling, costuming, aesthetics and she is a slob kebob with terrible editing skills (rings on every finger, everything overly done).

What can I say? Some of us - not you - have taste.

I just want to post a reference photo so people understand what you are calling a "slob kebob" whose "hair is a mess":

She f’d up the dress, which is too short for her, the pattern is off, and the Tupperware chest not proportionally covered. I don’t think madame marblemouth is pretty, so sue me. With good attorneys.

She looks better here than she usually does. I would let this go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

I really appreciate this post for the level of detail, use of sources and neutral tone. Thank you.

If you actually look at the sources, you’d see that she misrepresented them. Freedman agreed to the full extension to March 5, and asked for a similar extension for his response to the Complaint. That makes sense, if you change one date by three weeks, you need to change other dates as well. Since the judge did not agree to the March 5 date, Baldoni would not need an extension. The only party that lost this motion was Blake.

I’m PP who you’re saying misrepresented and I don’t think I did. Lively initially had a month to respond to Baldoni’s amended complaint and asked to extend that to ~45 days. I don’t know how much time Baldoni originally had to file their response but I assume that was 30 days and not the 45 that they now sought in their letter extension request. Did they originally have 45? I don’t have the case management order. And Lively did get what they requested re the March 20 MTD date, which you ignore completely.

Seriously, you are just pretending not to get this, right? Baldoni’s pleading is responsive to the Amended Complaint. If the Amemded Complaint dat gets pushed back three weeks, he is going to need more time to respond. If the date the Amended Complaint doesn’t change, he doesn’t need that extra time. And if you still can’t follow, he specifically made his request conditionally on the Amended Complaint being due on March 5.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.

I don’t think Freeman was just asking for his deadline to be extended out the same number of days as Lively’s was. If you look at his letter, he asks for his response to be due about 43 days after Lively’s amended complaint then would have been due (if extension were granted). I assume they did not originally have that much time to respond — 45 days. The Federal Rules generally allow 14 days for a response to an amended complaint. I assumed Freeman had already had thirty and was asking for an additional ~15. If Freeman only had ~14 to start with then this requested movement of his deadline out ~45 days from after Lively filed the amended complaint means he would have essentially been making an extension request of about 30 days — i.e., the original 14 days he had plus another 30 days beyond that.

It’s possible he already had about 45 days to respond, but I can’t find the CMO and that seems unlikely and excessive given the dates I do know.

And your attitude here when you don’t seem to be even trying to understand what I’m saying is annoying. Calm down and read, please.

Do you understand if, then statements? His request only applied if her request was granted. The only legal basis he had for requesting an extension at this point in time was if her dates change. The Court refusing to move the date of the Amended Complaint made his request moot. Therefore whether his extended date was 30 or 45 days out was never considered by the Court and completely irrelevant (surely you realize this?).

Might he still seek an extension even though her request was denied? Of course, but he doesn’t have a basis to do so unless her amended complaint is sufficiently longer than the current one. Thus, his initial request was limited to if her due date changed to 3/5. Otherwise, he is going to have to wait until she actually files an amended complaint and everyone is aware of exactly how much new material it contains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

I've seen it mentioned on Reddit but not here. Criticism of Baldoni doesn't get traction here.

Because it’s horseshit - unless of course you can explain the parties involved, the bases alleged, all of it. I don’t know why you’re taking up for a brassy-haired liar so don’t be shy, make those astute comparisons, build that pattern.

Lively doesn’t have anything to do with this other lawsuit, which was filed in 2020 - not sure what Lively’s hair color has to do with anything here? I guess you’re saying Baldoni’s treatment of this dude is not relevant here, though a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed against Baldoni and Wayfarer a few years before events in this case began seems relevant? As described in this subreddit, about which I know nothing beyond it seems to be very pro-Lively or anti-Baldoni, it may suggest that Baldoni has a tendency to exploit people for his and his production company’s personal gain and isn’t afraid to retaliate, especially with the weight of his backer behind him.

Let’s stick with the present. Why did BL’s lawyers represent their subpoena as seeking only non content documents when the subpoena is in no way so limited? Seems sanctionable.

Still waiting on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

It has not been posted here, so thank you. I read through it and it's interesting, not sure it moves the needle. Reads almost like a contract claim calling it retaliation because plaintiff complained about racial insensitivity during George Floyd. It wasn’t the same sort of retaliation Lively is alleging with the troll army which was more of an affirmative attempt to destroy her.

I am not a Baldoni supporter but I find it unfair to mention his religion's views on sexual morality, which are fairly in line with major world religions, anyway.

I actually do see some connecting threads there. In both instances (the prior case and Lively's case) it seems Wayfarer was trying to prevent itself as specifically very progressive and that the way it spoke about those progressive values didn't sit right with someone actually employed by them. Like in the prior case, it's like they are trying to be sensitive to BLM and the George Floyd murder by talking about it, but then they've got a black employee who finds the way they talk about it to be tone deaf and insensitive.

I think there was something similar with IEWU. I think Baldoni and Heath felt they were being feminist in the way they approached the sex scenes, the birth scene, and Lively's breastfeeding on set, but that they way they handled it instead felt tone deaf and insensitive to Lively.

I don’t disagree with you, but being tone deaf and insensitive is not sexual harassment. It just simply is not.

People seem to be holding Justin to standards that no other film set has seemed to ever achieve, ever. And at this point, no other women have come forward. And in fact, if you look at panel interviews done before the promotion of the film, the cast and crew were singing his praises. It was only when Blake got to them during the promotion that they either switched sides or went silent, and now Colleen Hoover is back on instagram and took down her post supporting Blake. That speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

It has not been posted here, so thank you. I read through it and it's interesting, not sure it moves the needle. Reads almost like a contract claim calling it retaliation because plaintiff complained about racial insensitivity during George Floyd. It wasn’t the same sort of retaliation Lively is alleging with the troll army which was more of an affirmative attempt to destroy her.

I am not a Baldoni supporter but I find it unfair to mention his religion's views on sexual morality, which are fairly in line with major world religions, anyway.

I actually do see some connecting threads there. In both instances (the prior case and Lively's case) it seems Wayfarer was trying to prevent itself as specifically very progressive and that the way it spoke about those progressive values didn't sit right with someone actually employed by them. Like in the prior case, it's like they are trying to be sensitive to BLM and the George Floyd murder by talking about it, but then they've got a black employee who finds the way they talk about it to be tone deaf and insensitive.

I think there was something similar with IEWU. I think Baldoni and Heath felt they were being feminist in the way they approached the sex scenes, the birth scene, and Lively's breastfeeding on set, but that they way they handled it instead felt tone deaf and insensitive to Lively.

I agree with this analysis. I think Baldoni and production co. seemed to think they were being progressive and supportive to people not like them but actually came off as tone deaf or worse to the “others” they were dealing with, in ways that often should have been obvious to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

Britneys old dress looks bad on BL even with panels added (I guess it’s editing…), the dimensions and beauty of the beading got screwed in the process. And her makeup makes her a twin to Guy Fawkes. Who told her she had a good stylist’s eye?

Regardless of where you stand on Baldoni/Lively, this is a weird take. Lively looks gorgeous in that dress, including her hair makeup. I don't always like Lively's styling but she nailed that one.

She never nails it and is not good looking to me, your mileage may vary. She certainly thinks she’s hot shit and thinks she has taste, but that dress looks cheap and short and straining on her. Her hair is a mess and the tones of her hair and roots don’t go together. She’s selling herself as having the skills of someone actually talented in styling, costuming, aesthetics and she is a slob kebob with terrible editing skills (rings on every finger, everything overly done).

What can I say? Some of us - not you - have taste.

I just want to post a reference photo so people understand what you are calling a "slob kebob" whose "hair is a mess":

She f’d up the dress, which is too short for her, the pattern is off, and the Tupperware chest not proportionally covered. I don’t think madame marblemouth is pretty, so sue me. With good attorneys.

I don't even like Blake Lively but I can admit she looks gorgeous there. You're cray cray. She's objectively pretty.

No, she isn’t. Beauty is subjective and she is not pretty to me and never was. Nose jobs, bleach and fake boobs on her frame work for you, wonderful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

Britneys old dress looks bad on BL even with panels added (I guess it’s editing…), the dimensions and beauty of the beading got screwed in the process. And her makeup makes her a twin to Guy Fawkes. Who told her she had a good stylist’s eye?

Regardless of where you stand on Baldoni/Lively, this is a weird take. Lively looks gorgeous in that dress, including her hair makeup. I don't always like Lively's styling but she nailed that one.

She never nails it and is not good looking to me, your mileage may vary. She certainly thinks she’s hot shit and thinks she has taste, but that dress looks cheap and short and straining on her. Her hair is a mess and the tones of her hair and roots don’t go together. She’s selling herself as having the skills of someone actually talented in styling, costuming, aesthetics and she is a slob kebob with terrible editing skills (rings on every finger, everything overly done).

What can I say? Some of us - not you - have taste.

I just want to post a reference photo so people understand what you are calling a "slob kebob" whose "hair is a mess":

She f’d up the dress, which is too short for her, the pattern is off, and the Tupperware chest not proportionally covered. I don’t think madame marblemouth is pretty, so sue me. With good attorneys.

She looks better here than she usually does. I would let this go.

Maybe umm (just trying to match the tone of your people here) take your own advice? She had extra fabric added to a pretty dress as one of her constant one-upping narc moves. She’s a big woman who doesn’t get her body or style at all, which besides her scummy moves, set this off - having people clown the images of her in her wack costumes. She looked big, unkempt and tacky, and she is busted Vegas showgirl ok her best day. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

She had extra fabric added to a pretty dress as one of her constant one-upping narc moves.

Where do you come up with this stuff lol. Geez.