Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has been getting some bad headlines for people who aren’t paying that close of attention. It’s making it seem like Justin has won defamation claims against Ryan Reynolds, which a lot of people will just infer from the headlines that Ryan lied about him. Other headlines are saying Baldoni scored a victory in court.

It’s much more nuanced for people who are following the case, but most people aren’t.

It isn’t nuanced at all, the Blake/Jones side lost all of their motions that were decided by Liman over the past two days. As many of us said at the time, those Rule 11 motions were not going to be granted, and were a bad move strategically.

What? The court found for Lively on all of the Rule 11 claims except the one concerning the defamation claim against Reynolds. Liman formally reprimanded Freeman and Baldoni's other attorneys for making "frivolous" and "factually baseless" claims. He declined to grant sanctions but the legal finding is almost entirely in Lively's favor, and this is a key ruling because it puts Baldoni's lawyers on the back foot with Liman moving forward. It also could set up a finding of spoliation against Baldoni that would have major negative consequences for him.

Totally bizarre to call a motion that you one 90% of a "bad move strategically." That was a clear win for Lively.

There were two Rule 11 motions. Reynolds motion was a total loss. For the other, Blake was denied the relief she sought. Those are both losses.

You are totally misrepresenting the reprimand. The judge found that Freedman’s use of group pleading led to claims being extended improperly to certain plaintiffs because he didn’t distinguish among them. I believe that lawyers on both sides pointed this out as well at the time. In any case, those claims were already dismissed months ago, so we already knew the judge believed them to be deficient.

Lively/Reynolds made multiple Rule 11 allegations. Liman treated them all together in one decision. In that decision, he declined to find a Rule 11 violation with regards to the defamation allegation against Reynolds, but he found violations on ALL other allegations.

"For purposes of Rule 11, however, what makes the civil extortion claim sanctionable is that the factual allegations do not support a claim for relief by Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or IEWUM against Lively or Reynolds. The four of them simply had no basis to sue Lively or Reynolds for civil extortion."

"The Wayfarer Parties have not identified even an arguable basis in law or fact for any Wayfarer Party other than Baldoni and Wayfarer to assert these claims, as no other party was implicated in the contractual relationship."

"But there was no conceivable basis upon which to allege the existence of a contractual relationship between Lively and Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or Heath."

A court reprimand is a sanction -- that is the sanction he chose to award. He declined to award money sanctions because he concluded that neither Lively nor Reynolds suffered repetitional damage as a result of the violations (dubious, and he doesn't go into detail on his thinking here, but my sense based on his other statements is that he believes the repetitional damage to parties is a wash in this case) and because the court didn't suffer a burden from the frivolous claims (because they were fully dismissed and the discovery and other proceedings associated with them would have happened anyway under the other claims in the case).

That's not a loss. A motion like this is filed in service to their broader goals in the case. Here the goal was to highlight how Baldoni's lawyers have a history of lying and violating court rules. Liman agreed with them on those points. They can now reference this decision in support of other motions to reign in Baldoni's lawyers before and during trial. Any litigator would take this as a win.

Everything you cited supports what I just said — the judge really didn’t like Freedman’s group pleading because it extends the claims to all plaintiffs and all defendants making the claims over broad. This isn’t an accusation of lying — it’s an accusation of sloppy drafting.

The claims were already dismissed at the time the Rule 11 motion was filed so the motion was intended not to solicit further criticism about the already dismissed claims but to get attorney’s fees for Blake. It failed in that objective.

No it goes beyond the group pleading issue. He says there was no conceivable basis for the extortion claims *at all*. That actually is an accusation of lying. In his dismissal, Liman focused on the group pleading deficiencies, which rendered these claims legally not viable. But in this decision, he describes them as frivolous with no basis in law or fact, even if you eliminate the group pleading issue and focus on just Baldoni's allegations against Lively, specifically.

Which is why he awards sanctions in the form of a reprimand against Freedman and his firm.

He literally says he's awarding sanctions and that the actions are sanctionable. He chooses to award a non-monetary sanction because he does not believe other Lively or the court suffered financial burdens. That doesn't mean he is agreeing with Baldoni. Lively won this one and Baldoni lost it.

[Anonymous]

I do wonder why WF highly paid counsel couldn't or wouldn't get basic things right like not asserting contract claims against the right parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder why WF highly paid counsel couldn't or wouldn't get basic things right like not asserting contract claims against the right parties.

Do you wonder why Blake brought the Van Zann complaint as a breach of contract claim or does it just go one way?

I’ll take the side that gets sloppy with group pleading over the side that fabricates a doe complaint in an effort to deprive its opponents of their right to oppose a subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder why WF highly paid counsel couldn't or wouldn't get basic things right like not asserting contract claims against the right parties.

Do you wonder why Blake brought the Van Zann complaint as a breach of contract claim or does it just go one way?

I’ll take the side that gets sloppy with group pleading over the side that fabricates a doe complaint in an effort to deprive its opponents of their right to oppose a subpoena.

DP, but as a lawyer, the Van Zan thing looks shady to me but does not make me think her lawyers are incompetent because... it worked. Like it actually worked out great and to their client's benefit. I question the tactic but I can't say they aren't doing their jobs well and would even recommend them to a client looking for aggressive, tough litigators willing to go the extra mile.

But the behavior of the Wayfarer lawyers is bizarre and embarrassing. The group pleading issues were blatant and could have been cured before dismissal. Posting that "timeline" as an exhibit? Not just shady, but stupid -- it was full of details that actually benefitted Lively or admitted her claims. That thing Freedman pulled where he issued the triple hearsay declaration to try and claim Lively's lawyer tried to extort Taylor Swift? Absolutely deranged.

I cannot imagine hiring these clowns. They do not seem like serious people at all and you can tell the judge has zero respect for Freedman. It looks like Wayfarer has brought in other lawyers and firms, likely to address the fact that the judge thinks Freedman is a total conman, but a more competent attorney wouldn't have done this stuff to begin with. It makes his clients look guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder why WF highly paid counsel couldn't or wouldn't get basic things right like not asserting contract claims against the right parties.

Do you wonder why Blake brought the Van Zann complaint as a breach of contract claim or does it just go one way?

I’ll take the side that gets sloppy with group pleading over the side that fabricates a doe complaint in an effort to deprive its opponents of their right to oppose a subpoena.

The motivation for Vanzan is pretty clear. It was to get the evidence to Lively under color of law so Jones wouldn't violate her confidentially agreement* with Wayfarer, without giving Wayfarer notice and an opportunity to object to the scope. It was unethical and I don't support it, but I don't wonder why they did it. I guess they chose breach of contract because Vanzan is just a shell company so there weren't many options.

I don't see why highly paid firms like Wayfarer is using couldn't get the defendants right. I don't see what was to be gained since they had plenty of other causes of action. I do understand why they wouldn't withdraw the claims once Lively filed the Rule 11 motion because it would be bad PR. If I were Wayfarer, I would be pissed. That was a self-own, they're sanctioned and reprimanded now and gained nothing from it.

*It's kind of interesting how Liman completely sidestepped Vanzan by just ruling that it wasn't confidential information as defined in the Jonesworks/Wayfarer contract. I'd have to reread the decision but this implies that she wouldn't have needed a subpoena at all, because the information wasn't given by Wayfarer to Jonesworks (that might be true of the Abel/Nathan texts but I'm not sure I agree to the extent some of the texts IIRC were from Wayfarer parties to Abel).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder why WF highly paid counsel couldn't or wouldn't get basic things right like not asserting contract claims against the right parties.

Do you wonder why Blake brought the Van Zann complaint as a breach of contract claim or does it just go one way?

I’ll take the side that gets sloppy with group pleading over the side that fabricates a doe complaint in an effort to deprive its opponents of their right to oppose a subpoena.

The motivation for Vanzan is pretty clear. It was to get the evidence to Lively under color of law so Jones wouldn't violate her confidentially agreement* with Wayfarer, without giving Wayfarer notice and an opportunity to object to the scope. It was unethical and I don't support it, but I don't wonder why they did it. I guess they chose breach of contract because Vanzan is just a shell company so there weren't many options.

I don't see why highly paid firms like Wayfarer is using couldn't get the defendants right. I don't see what was to be gained since they had plenty of other causes of action. I do understand why they wouldn't withdraw the claims once Lively filed the Rule 11 motion because it would be bad PR. If I were Wayfarer, I would be pissed. That was a self-own, they're sanctioned and reprimanded now and gained nothing from it.

*It's kind of interesting how Liman completely sidestepped Vanzan by just ruling that it wasn't confidential information as defined in the Jonesworks/Wayfarer contract. I'd have to reread the decision but this implies that she wouldn't have needed a subpoena at all, because the information wasn't given by Wayfarer to Jonesworks (that might be true of the Abel/Nathan texts but I'm not sure I agree to the extent some of the texts IIRC were from Wayfarer parties to Abel).

I’ve been a litigator for a couple of decades and never have seen a plaintiff withdraw claims with a motion to dismiss pending. The overwhelming majority of judges would have given them the opportunity to replead even if they granted the motion to dismiss. Liman is a different kind of judge.

Pretty sure WF said, in their state case, they intend to appeal the MTD with respect to the NYT. That will be interesting if it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has been getting some bad headlines for people who aren’t paying that close of attention. It’s making it seem like Justin has won defamation claims against Ryan Reynolds, which a lot of people will just infer from the headlines that Ryan lied about him. Other headlines are saying Baldoni scored a victory in court.

It’s much more nuanced for people who are following the case, but most people aren’t.

It isn’t nuanced at all, the Blake/Jones side lost all of their motions that were decided by Liman over the past two days. As many of us said at the time, those Rule 11 motions were not going to be granted, and were a bad move strategically.

What? The court found for Lively on all of the Rule 11 claims except the one concerning the defamation claim against Reynolds. Liman formally reprimanded Freeman and Baldoni's other attorneys for making "frivolous" and "factually baseless" claims. He declined to grant sanctions but the legal finding is almost entirely in Lively's favor, and this is a key ruling because it puts Baldoni's lawyers on the back foot with Liman moving forward. It also could set up a finding of spoliation against Baldoni that would have major negative consequences for him.

Totally bizarre to call a motion that you one 90% of a "bad move strategically." That was a clear win for Lively.

There were two Rule 11 motions. Reynolds motion was a total loss. For the other, Blake was denied the relief she sought. Those are both losses.

You are totally misrepresenting the reprimand. The judge found that Freedman’s use of group pleading led to claims being extended improperly to certain plaintiffs because he didn’t distinguish among them. I believe that lawyers on both sides pointed this out as well at the time. In any case, those claims were already dismissed months ago, so we already knew the judge believed them to be deficient.

Lively/Reynolds made multiple Rule 11 allegations. Liman treated them all together in one decision. In that decision, he declined to find a Rule 11 violation with regards to the defamation allegation against Reynolds, but he found violations on ALL other allegations.

"For purposes of Rule 11, however, what makes the civil extortion claim sanctionable is that the factual allegations do not support a claim for relief by Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or IEWUM against Lively or Reynolds. The four of them simply had no basis to sue Lively or Reynolds for civil extortion."

"The Wayfarer Parties have not identified even an arguable basis in law or fact for any Wayfarer Party other than Baldoni and Wayfarer to assert these claims, as no other party was implicated in the contractual relationship."

"But there was no conceivable basis upon which to allege the existence of a contractual relationship between Lively and Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or Heath."

A court reprimand is a sanction -- that is the sanction he chose to award. He declined to award money sanctions because he concluded that neither Lively nor Reynolds suffered repetitional damage as a result of the violations (dubious, and he doesn't go into detail on his thinking here, but my sense based on his other statements is that he believes the repetitional damage to parties is a wash in this case) and because the court didn't suffer a burden from the frivolous claims (because they were fully dismissed and the discovery and other proceedings associated with them would have happened anyway under the other claims in the case).

That's not a loss. A motion like this is filed in service to their broader goals in the case. Here the goal was to highlight how Baldoni's lawyers have a history of lying and violating court rules. Liman agreed with them on those points. They can now reference this decision in support of other motions to reign in Baldoni's lawyers before and during trial. Any litigator would take this as a win.

Everything you cited supports what I just said — the judge really didn’t like Freedman’s group pleading because it extends the claims to all plaintiffs and all defendants making the claims over broad. This isn’t an accusation of lying — it’s an accusation of sloppy drafting.

The claims were already dismissed at the time the Rule 11 motion was filed so the motion was intended not to solicit further criticism about the already dismissed claims but to get attorney’s fees for Blake. It failed in that objective.

No it goes beyond the group pleading issue. He says there was no conceivable basis for the extortion claims *at all*. That actually is an accusation of lying. In his dismissal, Liman focused on the group pleading deficiencies, which rendered these claims legally not viable. But in this decision, he describes them as frivolous with no basis in law or fact, even if you eliminate the group pleading issue and focus on just Baldoni's allegations against Lively, specifically.

Which is why he awards sanctions in the form of a reprimand against Freedman and his firm.

He literally says he's awarding sanctions and that the actions are sanctionable. He chooses to award a non-monetary sanction because he does not believe other Lively or the court suffered financial burdens. That doesn't mean he is agreeing with Baldoni. Lively won this one and Baldoni lost it.

Blake wanted money, she didn’t get it. Baldoni’s complaint has been dead for over a year, it really doesn’t matter now at all.

[Anonymous]

Let’s not forget that Blake also lost her motion for sanctions against Freedman. That happened a week earlier and hasn’t been discussed here either.

[Anonymous]

Popculturechat is claiming this:

"Baldoni/Lively Judge rules that Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively was "legally frivolous and factually baseless" and sanctions Baldoni's lawyers"

Is that true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Popculturechat is claiming this:

"Baldoni/Lively Judge rules that Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively was "legally frivolous and factually baseless" and sanctions Baldoni's lawyers"

Is that true?

Partially, yes. It's the opposite side of the coin from those claiming Baldoni won everything. This reads like a nicely worded statement from Lively's team.

Some of the claims in Baldoni's lawsuits were ruled legally frivolous and factually baseless, but it was mostly contract-type claims asserted against the wrong parties. The headline makes it sound like it's referring to his entire lawsuit, but it was only some claims.

Baldoni's lawyers were sanctioned for that, in the form of a reprimand, which is serious for an attorney, but the judge did not award the money damages Lively wanted.

A fair headline would be more like "Baldoni/Lively Judge rules portions of Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively were "legally frivolous and factually baseless" and reprimands Baldoni's lawyers, but avoids the most serious sanctions."

[Anonymous]

Didn’t Blake lose some stuff too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Blake lose some stuff too?

Was there something unclear in the last two pages you have questions about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Popculturechat is claiming this:

"Baldoni/Lively Judge rules that Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively was "legally frivolous and factually baseless" and sanctions Baldoni's lawyers"

Is that true?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1270.0.pdf

Basically yes it was true. The judge ruled that most of the claims that were against Reynolds were legally frivalous and factually baseless and that he shouldn't have been included and he also ruled that adding that there is a claim for relief for by Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or IEWUM was also legally frivolous and factually baseless. Of the 7 claims, the judge ruled 6 of them were legally frivolous and factually baseless. One of them he agreed was legitimate.

[Anonymous]

I can't wait for Baldoni to appeal the NYTimes suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget that Blake also lost her motion for sanctions against Freedman. That happened a week earlier and hasn’t been discussed here either.

lol of course the brain dead people on Popculturechat didn't post about that.