Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL I don’t like Blake Lively but she is not a “big woman.” She’s not a waif, but she’s not big. Come on.

She is 5’10, that is big for a man or woman. She is big. Not that it’s a bad thing, it just is what it is.

Most models are 5'10 or taller. Are most models "big"?

And 5'10" is not "big" for a man. It's average height for a man. Most men who are 5'10" are nowhere near as thin as Lively is.

So no, she is not big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Extensive surgery is not beautiful, it’s well done, but anyone who has that much plastic surgery can’t be considered naturally beautiful. Let alone the vast amount of makeup, tan, hair extensions and color, teeth, etc. BL, like so many others, is fake. What makes her even more unattractive is this attitude that she is the sh!t, while her entire face and body is due to a surgeon’s work. Take all of this away and we have a very average, at best, looking woman.

Every Hollywood actress does this. You still have to be naturally pretty to break into the ingenue type roles like on Gossip Girl.

No, actresses aren’t all beautiful, or they don’t all start out as beautiful. They have a number of tweaks done over time that can make someone go from a 5 to a 10/10 in some cases. This is one reason why Hollywood is so toxic, it ruins people and projects unrealistic image. BL was not ‘beautiful’ in GG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My original post was correct. Freeman’s request to move his reply date out further would have given him even more time to respond than he originally had, which was adding a more-than-needed extension on top of Lively’s extension request (which you continuously fail to acknowledge). Sure, by mostly denying Lively’s extension request, the judge obviated the need to respond to Freeman’s additional request, but saying the judge “never considered” the effect of this request in responding to Lively’s ignores the pragmatic case scheduling issues judges deal with all the time. If you mean “never considered” in that the judge did not directly address Freeman’s letter request in his docket entry, okay, but I’m sure the ever increasing nuclear arsenal of extension requests crossed his mind lol.

Oh please. This is idiotic. When someone says if you grant x, then I ask for y, you ignore y if you don’t grant x. A judge is not then going to grant y for the hell of it. But let’s tie ourselves in an illogical knot so you can pretend your original post wasn’t inaccurate.

Come on. You kept insisting Baldoni was just asking for the same number of days to respond that he’d had before, and ignoring the fact that it was in fact an additional extension request if the judge granted Lively’s. My post was correct and yours insulting me saying of course Baldoni would then need extra days (as though Baldoni had not requested more days on top of what he already had) was wrong and misleading. Freeman wasn’t just asking for the dates to move in tandem with Lively’s date, he was asking for an extension on top of that. And in the real world, I’m sure the judge considered that too, though I’m sure most of the weight rested on the (in)sufficiency of need in Lively’s original request.

Right, IF THE JUDGE GRANTED LIVELY’S. He didn’t. The judge is not otherwise granting an extension for an amended complaint that might not even be filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dp, but she did shorten the dress and have panels added. Brittney was very skinny when she wore it.

I mean the part where she's a crazy narcissist for tailoring a dress to her proportions, obviously.

There was no judgment in my post, only facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL I don’t like Blake Lively but she is not a “big woman.” She’s not a waif, but she’s not big. Come on.

She is 5’10, that is big for a man or woman. She is big. Not that it’s a bad thing, it just is what it is.

Most models are 5'10 or taller. Are most models "big"?

And 5'10" is not "big" for a man. It's average height for a man. Most men who are 5'10" are nowhere near as thin as Lively is.

So no, she is not big.

She is big compared to most women, or tall I should say. There are tons of fat short women. She is both big and tall. Models are either way underweight for their height or are teenagers and not fully developed yet. BL is not a model. She is bigger and taller than many men. Again, not a bad thing, it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

You don’t realize how big and tall Blake is until you see her next to an average or small woman, it puts it in perspective. Standing alone or next to a 6ft+ man she looks average. She looks like she’d be a good athlete, a swimmer or basketball player. She looks good and athletic. She is taller than most men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My original post was correct. Freeman’s request to move his reply date out further would have given him even more time to respond than he originally had, which was adding a more-than-needed extension on top of Lively’s extension request (which you continuously fail to acknowledge). Sure, by mostly denying Lively’s extension request, the judge obviated the need to respond to Freeman’s additional request, but saying the judge “never considered” the effect of this request in responding to Lively’s ignores the pragmatic case scheduling issues judges deal with all the time. If you mean “never considered” in that the judge did not directly address Freeman’s letter request in his docket entry, okay, but I’m sure the ever increasing nuclear arsenal of extension requests crossed his mind lol.

Oh please. This is idiotic. When someone says if you grant x, then I ask for y, you ignore y if you don’t grant x. A judge is not then going to grant y for the hell of it. But let’s tie ourselves in an illogical knot so you can pretend your original post wasn’t inaccurate.

Come on. You kept insisting Baldoni was just asking for the same number of days to respond that he’d had before, and ignoring the fact that it was in fact an additional extension request if the judge granted Lively’s. My post was correct and yours insulting me saying of course Baldoni would then need extra days (as though Baldoni had not requested more days on top of what he already had) was wrong and misleading. Freeman wasn’t just asking for the dates to move in tandem with Lively’s date, he was asking for an extension on top of that. And in the real world, I’m sure the judge considered that too, though I’m sure most of the weight rested on the (in)sufficiency of need in Lively’s original request.

Right, IF THE JUDGE GRANTED LIVELY’S. He didn’t. The judge is not otherwise granting an extension for an amended complaint that might not even be filed.

I’m not going to continue this with you after this, but you/PP continuously mischaracterized Freeman’s request as just a necessary move of dates based on Lively’s extension if granted rather than that PLUS the actual additional extension request that it was, and you argued that that part of my post was wrong. In fact you were wrong.

I suspect this back and forth is annoying to others so I’m sorry about that. I did go to the trouble of actually examining the underlying documents and explaining them as fairly as I could, so to have this poster bite my head off while consistently misunderstanding what I was saying is a lot and makes it rather not worth the trouble.

[Anonymous]

As riveting as the discussion about Blake Lively's body size as compared to other people is, looks like some news is breaking about what might be in Lively's amended complain.

They apparently have receipts for SH complaints from three separate actresses on IEWU, including Lively, against Baldoni. And they will name names and these actresses are prepared to testify.

Additional details about the birth scene and the pressure imposed on Lively to do the scene nude, plus an new, more specific allegation that Lively agreed to do the scene on the condition that the monitors that broadcast footage be turned off, and that Baldoni had those monitors turned back on while the scene was being shot.

Also additional details around Baldoni's comments to Lively about communicating with her dead father that say he, on one occasion, followed her from her car to her trailer trying to tell her about his communications with her deceased father over her objections.

Info coming out on this livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4basfTdSPA

Being discussed on this (pro-JB) subreddit, which I expect to be updated and you can also watch the comments for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1iqz4uy/breaking_news_does_this_change_everything/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My original post was correct. Freeman’s request to move his reply date out further would have given him even more time to respond than he originally had, which was adding a more-than-needed extension on top of Lively’s extension request (which you continuously fail to acknowledge). Sure, by mostly denying Lively’s extension request, the judge obviated the need to respond to Freeman’s additional request, but saying the judge “never considered” the effect of this request in responding to Lively’s ignores the pragmatic case scheduling issues judges deal with all the time. If you mean “never considered” in that the judge did not directly address Freeman’s letter request in his docket entry, okay, but I’m sure the ever increasing nuclear arsenal of extension requests crossed his mind lol.

Oh please. This is idiotic. When someone says if you grant x, then I ask for y, you ignore y if you don’t grant x. A judge is not then going to grant y for the hell of it. But let’s tie ourselves in an illogical knot so you can pretend your original post wasn’t inaccurate.

Come on. You kept insisting Baldoni was just asking for the same number of days to respond that he’d had before, and ignoring the fact that it was in fact an additional extension request if the judge granted Lively’s. My post was correct and yours insulting me saying of course Baldoni would then need extra days (as though Baldoni had not requested more days on top of what he already had) was wrong and misleading. Freeman wasn’t just asking for the dates to move in tandem with Lively’s date, he was asking for an extension on top of that. And in the real world, I’m sure the judge considered that too, though I’m sure most of the weight rested on the (in)sufficiency of need in Lively’s original request.

Right, IF THE JUDGE GRANTED LIVELY’S. He didn’t. The judge is not otherwise granting an extension for an amended complaint that might not even be filed.

I’m not going to continue this with you after this, but you/PP continuously mischaracterized Freeman’s request as just a necessary move of dates based on Lively’s extension if granted rather than that PLUS the actual additional extension request that it was, and you argued that that part of my post was wrong. In fact you were wrong.

I suspect this back and forth is annoying to others so I’m sorry about that. I did go to the trouble of actually examining the underlying documents and explaining them as fairly as I could, so to have this poster bite my head off while consistently misunderstanding what I was saying is a lot and makes it rather not worth the trouble.

I fully understand your attempt to misrepresent, and have explained what Beldoni’s request was accurately. You did not. Moving on. . . .

[Anonymous]

Ok more specific details coming out about harassment of Jenny Slate and Isabela Ferrer. I'm just going to cut and paste from the subreddit:

Jenny Slate

Baldoni put hands on actresses butt, and said he was helping with posture. He explained he was married. Actress said it wasn't ok. Bladoni said go see HR. She did! 3 hours later, he apologised.

Isabela Ferrer

Baldoni asked her if she ever had an orgasm on camera. Actress asks why he is asking as a climax is not scripted in scene. Baldoni leans in and whispers "I think we should add it in. Show me what you got". She said she didn't want to. Director said she couldn't hold up filming. Actress felt she had to. Baldoni placed his hands on her outer thighs and stated "come on, you can do better than that." Baldoni was so close she could feel his breath causing her makeup to mist up. He said "you know how hot this is, right?". He asked her to practise the scene again. This time he was closer, virtually locking her in place, in a very intimate embrace. A differenct actress came on set and waved. At which point Baldoni broke the embrace. At which point the make up need to be redone.

So we're talking actual sexual assault now.

If these allegations are true and these actresses are willing to go on the record, this is deeply disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As riveting as the discussion about Blake Lively's body size as compared to other people is, looks like some news is breaking about what might be in Lively's amended complain.

They apparently have receipts for SH complaints from three separate actresses on IEWU, including Lively, against Baldoni. And they will name names and these actresses are prepared to testify.

Additional details about the birth scene and the pressure imposed on Lively to do the scene nude, plus an new, more specific allegation that Lively agreed to do the scene on the condition that the monitors that broadcast footage be turned off, and that Baldoni had those monitors turned back on while the scene was being shot.

Also additional details around Baldoni's comments to Lively about communicating with her dead father that say he, on one occasion, followed her from her car to her trailer trying to tell her about his communications with her deceased father over her objections.

Info coming out on this livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4basfTdSPA

Being discussed on this (pro-JB) subreddit, which I expect to be updated and you can also watch the comments for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1iqz4uy/breaking_news_does_this_change_everything/

So nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok more specific details coming out about harassment of Jenny Slate and Isabela Ferrer. I'm just going to cut and paste from the subreddit:

Jenny Slate

Baldoni put hands on actresses butt, and said he was helping with posture. He explained he was married. Actress said it wasn't ok. Bladoni said go see HR. She did! 3 hours later, he apologised.

Isabela Ferrer

Baldoni asked her if she ever had an orgasm on camera. Actress asks why he is asking as a climax is not scripted in scene. Baldoni leans in and whispers "I think we should add it in. Show me what you got". She said she didn't want to. Director said she couldn't hold up filming. Actress felt she had to. Baldoni placed his hands on her outer thighs and stated "come on, you can do better than that." Baldoni was so close she could feel his breath causing her makeup to mist up. He said "you know how hot this is, right?". He asked her to practise the scene again. This time he was closer, virtually locking her in place, in a very intimate embrace. A differenct actress came on set and waved. At which point Baldoni broke the embrace. At which point the make up need to be redone.

So we're talking actual sexual assault now.

If these allegations are true and these actresses are willing to go on the record, this is deeply disturbing.

I’ll wait to see it somewhere other than Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As riveting as the discussion about Blake Lively's body size as compared to other people is, looks like some news is breaking about what might be in Lively's amended complain.

They apparently have receipts for SH complaints from three separate actresses on IEWU, including Lively, against Baldoni. And they will name names and these actresses are prepared to testify.

Additional details about the birth scene and the pressure imposed on Lively to do the scene nude, plus an new, more specific allegation that Lively agreed to do the scene on the condition that the monitors that broadcast footage be turned off, and that Baldoni had those monitors turned back on while the scene was being shot.

Also additional details around Baldoni's comments to Lively about communicating with her dead father that say he, on one occasion, followed her from her car to her trailer trying to tell her about his communications with her deceased father over her objections.

Info coming out on this livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4basfTdSPA

Being discussed on this (pro-JB) subreddit, which I expect to be updated and you can also watch the comments for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1iqz4uy/breaking_news_does_this_change_everything/

So nothing new.

The allegations by Slate and Ferrer are definitely new and disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As riveting as the discussion about Blake Lively's body size as compared to other people is, looks like some news is breaking about what might be in Lively's amended complain.

They apparently have receipts for SH complaints from three separate actresses on IEWU, including Lively, against Baldoni. And they will name names and these actresses are prepared to testify.

Additional details about the birth scene and the pressure imposed on Lively to do the scene nude, plus an new, more specific allegation that Lively agreed to do the scene on the condition that the monitors that broadcast footage be turned off, and that Baldoni had those monitors turned back on while the scene was being shot.

Also additional details around Baldoni's comments to Lively about communicating with her dead father that say he, on one occasion, followed her from her car to her trailer trying to tell her about his communications with her deceased father over her objections.

Info coming out on this livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4basfTdSPA

Being discussed on this (pro-JB) subreddit, which I expect to be updated and you can also watch the comments for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1iqz4uy/breaking_news_does_this_change_everything/

So nothing new.

The allegations by Slate and Ferrer are definitely new and disturbing.

So were the original accusations that BL made until it was that proven she lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The answer is that it is implied that they were only looking for logs because, and this is important, it's all the service providers can give them.

Service providers do not keep the content of messages. They don't record your phone calls. In order to get the text of messages, you have to subpoena the devices themselves, which they did not. So when they ask for all info related to a specific phone number, they are only looking for logs because that's all they can get.

It's pretty standard in a case like this to do a subpoena for call and text logs fairly early on because it creates a framework they can use for future discovery. Especially in a case like this where Lively and her team are going to have a lot of their own communications, and can use that to make sense of the logs to make a more specific request.

Both parties understand this, as do the service providers and the judge. But Baldoni's team knows that the average person does not understand this, which is why they drafted that letter that intentionally utilized a layperson's misunderstanding of the subpoena request to file objections. They knew their letter would make the rounds on social media and that the pro-JB crowd (who mostly have no idea how any of this works) would jump on it and say "oh yeah, here's Lively being grasping and unreasonable again." And it worked. But the judge will see through that and know that what his team is alleging was requested was never requested (communications with a doctor? spousal communication? come ON) in the first place.

It was a smart PR ploy but a meaningless legal move. I don't think it will really hurt them in court, at least not at this stage, but all the talk online about how Lively's team "screwed up" is just nonsense. This is how discovery in cases like this work. I've worked on a bunch of them and sat down with those stupid call logs and had to use them to construct specific discovery requests for the actual communications.

Nope, try again. It is not true that providers do not have copies of texts. They don’t maintain them for long but law enforcement commonly get them. And of course, kf one only wants logs, then one only requests logs.

But I admire your willingness to completely make things up. Perhaps there is a place on the Lively legal team for you.

Sure, law enforcement can get them where public safety overrides privacy concerns but (1) only for a very short period of time -- the carriers only hold the texts for a few days, at most a few weeks, and (2) because law enforcement is the only entity that can override the need for consent to disclose. Otherwise you need the sending party to consent to having the messages disclosed. And again, this is only for the very narrow period of time where the carrier even retains the messages. The carriers subpoenaed in this case likely do not currently have any messages for any party prior to 2025.

So no, there is no way to read these subpoena requests as requesting the actual messages. They were requesting call and text logs, as is very standard for an initial discovery request in a case like this.

Actually on there face they seek “all documents “ “including BUT NOT LIMITED TO” logs and the last request does not even mention logs of my type.