Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be shocked if they were suing lawyers. That would seem really unprecedented and just a terrible PR move as well. The rumors probably started because they’re really unhappy and Ryan probably made a threat. But it’s probably an idle threat.

The rumors likely came from the other side gloating about how stupid they were and what they should really do. I mean, come on, consider your sources are more than a little biased.

They aren't even rumors. Like a lot of what gets reported as "fact" in this case, it's idle speculation online that the Baldoni folks then mention in interviews (not confirming, just noting it's being "discussed online") and that reinforces the idea that it's real. These are fabrications. Lively is not going to sue her lawyers. There's nothing to indicate that she's even unhappy with them. There is no evidence Ryan "made a threat", idle or otherwise. There aren't even reports in tabloids with "a source close to Lively" or whatever. These aren't rumors and they aren't based on anything.

It's disinformation being deliberately seeded and encouraged online. Just like it's all been since the beginning of this stupid saga.

lol, you think she’s happy to have tens of millions on legal fees and wound up an extremely defendant friendly settlement? No money going to her and no non disclosure, leaving Baldoni, Heath and Friedman able to give interviews and write books?

[Anonymous]

I can understand them being really angry about the outcome of the case, but I don’t understand how the lawyers would have not protected themselves. These are not amateurs.

When someone says Blake demanded they file in New York, can she then sue them for that? That sounds crazy. What if they have proof that they advised her not to do that and she demanded so anyway… She can sue? It just makes no sense.

What I will say is it seems pretty clear from the CRD that they had no intent to really make a lawsuit out of this. It was a PR move for sure, way more than a legal move.

But surely someone must’ve explained what would happen if Baldoni‘s team wanted to defend themselves from the New York Times article. I also find it odd that no one explained to her that Steve Sarowitz is a billionaire and then when you put things like he ogled you during the birth scene, he might get mad and may want to sue given they have proof that he was nowhere on the premises during that scene.

It seems from folks digging in their past that this is not lively and Reynolds first rodeo at threatening people and getting their way. After a dozen times, they probably just assumed Wayfarer the small studio would roll over.

What a dumb mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand them being really angry about the outcome of the case, but I don’t understand how the lawyers would have not protected themselves. These are not amateurs.

When someone says Blake demanded they file in New York, can she then sue them for that? That sounds crazy. What if they have proof that they advised her not to do that and she demanded so anyway… She can sue? It just makes no sense.

What I will say is it seems pretty clear from the CRD that they had no intent to really make a lawsuit out of this. It was a PR move for sure, way more than a legal move.

But surely someone must’ve explained what would happen if Baldoni‘s team wanted to defend themselves from the New York Times article. I also find it odd that no one explained to her that Steve Sarowitz is a billionaire and then when you put things like he ogled you during the birth scene, he might get mad and may want to sue given they have proof that he was nowhere on the premises during that scene.

It seems from folks digging in their past that this is not lively and Reynolds first rodeo at threatening people and getting their way. After a dozen times, they probably just assumed Wayfarer the small studio would roll over.

What a dumb mistake.

I was that poster. I was just speculating that Blake wanted the case filed in NY, but it makes little sense to file it there otherwise. I don’t know when Gottlieb got involved but the other firm, Manatt, was handling the matter solo initially and there definitely were decisions made that don’t really make sense (Van Zan) if they were planning high profile litigation.

I think you are correct, they were not planning on high profile litigation, instead the plan was to destroy Baldoni and Wayfarer via the NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

It turns out it would have been much better for her to file the CRD and not to try to sue (ironically what Freedman was accusing her of).

File CRD and leak to NYT.
Baldoni sues for extortion/defamation.
All claims dismissed, total victory for Lively.
Lively can still pursue 47.1 leaving her in no worse a position as she is now.
Avoids messy discovery, legal fees, and risks of losing as a plaintiff.
She could just claim she didn't end up suing Baldoni because she wanted to put it behind her, more interested in getting her side out and testing 47.1, blah, blah, blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand them being really angry about the outcome of the case, but I don’t understand how the lawyers would have not protected themselves. These are not amateurs.

When someone says Blake demanded they file in New York, can she then sue them for that? That sounds crazy. What if they have proof that they advised her not to do that and she demanded so anyway… She can sue? It just makes no sense.

What I will say is it seems pretty clear from the CRD that they had no intent to really make a lawsuit out of this. It was a PR move for sure, way more than a legal move.

But surely someone must’ve explained what would happen if Baldoni‘s team wanted to defend themselves from the New York Times article. I also find it odd that no one explained to her that Steve Sarowitz is a billionaire and then when you put things like he ogled you during the birth scene, he might get mad and may want to sue given they have proof that he was nowhere on the premises during that scene.

It seems from folks digging in their past that this is not lively and Reynolds first rodeo at threatening people and getting their way. After a dozen times, they probably just assumed Wayfarer the small studio would roll over.

What a dumb mistake.

This is exactly what some of us had been screaming at the top of our lungs from the begining. Blake and her husband bit more than they could chew. Unfortunately for them, they didn't see two things happening:
1. The ferocity with which wayfarer and it's main backer Steve Sarowitz would defend themselves.
2. The court of public opinion( specifically millennial white women)not in her favour. I'm sure this one is even more shocking to Blake.

[Anonymous]

Whenever I hear Ryan’s voice for his sketchy cell phone company commercials I shiver. The guy has totally torched his reputation going along with if not totally orchestrating this scheme. Honestly, I now assume that cell phone company is a scam too.

[Anonymous]

Looks like NYT has filed to get attorney's fees for the case against them now that Baldoni/Wayfarer have given up their right to appeal that dismissal (making it final). Seems pretty straightforward in that case, I assume they'll get the fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like NYT has filed to get attorney's fees for the case against them now that Baldoni/Wayfarer have given up their right to appeal that dismissal (making it final). Seems pretty straightforward in that case, I assume they'll get the fees.

So a lot going on, though, of course the main case is basically over. Judd Wallace is still suing lively in Texas, Jones work and Abel are still suing each other. I believe, so it will be interesting to track those.

I understand that legally, the New York Times didn’t do anything wrong, but they should feel duped that they were a pawn in lively and Reynolds game.

Megan Twoey spent years trying to take down Harvey Weinstein and succeeding and now she’s done this. It’s a real shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like NYT has filed to get attorney's fees for the case against them now that Baldoni/Wayfarer have given up their right to appeal that dismissal (making it final). Seems pretty straightforward in that case, I assume they'll get the fees.

Did they though? I thought the settlement was only between Lively and Wayfarer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like NYT has filed to get attorney's fees for the case against them now that Baldoni/Wayfarer have given up their right to appeal that dismissal (making it final). Seems pretty straightforward in that case, I assume they'll get the fees.

Did they though? I thought the settlement was only between Lively and Wayfarer.

The settlement explicitly relinquishes right if appeal for the Motion to Dismiss that got the allegations against the NYT dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.

PP - Mark Garagos is a famous lawyer in his own right who happens to also be freedman’s bestie. He always discloses it when talking about Bryan so it doesn’t seem like he’s being deceptive. But Mark does a podcast with the tmz guy, has a pod with another lawyer, and is a regular guest on Megyn Kelly. Basically he’s always talking and gets paid to do so. He didn’t just come out of the woodwork to talk about lively, he’s a regular commentator. He’s retired but his daughter is a young up and coming defense attorney. She was on the diddy case and is now on the Weinstein appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.

PP - Mark Garagos is a famous lawyer in his own right who happens to also be freedman’s bestie. He always discloses it when talking about Bryan so it doesn’t seem like he’s being deceptive. But Mark does a podcast with the tmz guy, has a pod with another lawyer, and is a regular guest on Megyn Kelly. Basically he’s always talking and gets paid to do so. He didn’t just come out of the woodwork to talk about lively, he’s a regular commentator. He’s retired but his daughter is a young up and coming defense attorney. She was on the diddy case and is now on the Weinstein appeal.

And... why would he have special insight into what Lively or her lawyers are thinking? He isn't friends with them. But he has a strong motivation to imply negative things about her. So maybe it would be worth it to take the things he says with a grain of salt. Especially since he spends a lot of time gabbing with TMZ and Megyn Kelly, which both traffic in sensationalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whenever I hear Ryan’s voice for his sketchy cell phone company commercials I shiver. The guy has totally torched his reputation going along with if not totally orchestrating this scheme. Honestly, I now assume that cell phone company is a scam too.

And he burned down his elementary school. He has admitted it in various interviews. Joked about how he hoped some rando wasn’t in jail for it.

Blake and Justin are awful. Just watch the interview after the Woody Allen movie where she and Parker P were jerks to the Northern European reporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.

PP - Mark Garagos is a famous lawyer in his own right who happens to also be freedman’s bestie. He always discloses it when talking about Bryan so it doesn’t seem like he’s being deceptive. But Mark does a podcast with the tmz guy, has a pod with another lawyer, and is a regular guest on Megyn Kelly. Basically he’s always talking and gets paid to do so. He didn’t just come out of the woodwork to talk about lively, he’s a regular commentator. He’s retired but his daughter is a young up and coming defense attorney. She was on the diddy case and is now on the Weinstein appeal.

And... why would he have special insight into what Lively or her lawyers are thinking? He isn't friends with them. But he has a strong motivation to imply negative things about her. So maybe it would be worth it to take the things he says with a grain of salt. Especially since he spends a lot of time gabbing with TMZ and Megyn Kelly, which both traffic in sensationalism.

If there’s one thing we all should have learned from this case, it’s that where there’s smoke there’s fire. The blinds, tmz, they all have sources. These rumors are out there because there’s some there there. Doesn’t mean Blake will sue her lawyers, but it’s reasonable to believe she’s unhappy with them. And it’s also reasonable to believe that they would be strategic enough to inoculate themselves from a lawsuit. Just look at all the trickery they did for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.

PP - Mark Garagos is a famous lawyer in his own right who happens to also be freedman’s bestie. He always discloses it when talking about Bryan so it doesn’t seem like he’s being deceptive. But Mark does a podcast with the tmz guy, has a pod with another lawyer, and is a regular guest on Megyn Kelly. Basically he’s always talking and gets paid to do so. He didn’t just come out of the woodwork to talk about lively, he’s a regular commentator. He’s retired but his daughter is a young up and coming defense attorney. She was on the diddy case and is now on the Weinstein appeal.

And... why would he have special insight into what Lively or her lawyers are thinking? He isn't friends with them. But he has a strong motivation to imply negative things about her. So maybe it would be worth it to take the things he says with a grain of salt. Especially since he spends a lot of time gabbing with TMZ and Megyn Kelly, which both traffic in sensationalism.

If there’s one thing we all should have learned from this case, it’s that where there’s smoke there’s fire. The blinds, tmz, they all have sources. These rumors are out there because there’s some there there. Doesn’t mean Blake will sue her lawyers, but it’s reasonable to believe she’s unhappy with them. And it’s also reasonable to believe that they would be strategic enough to inoculate themselves from a lawsuit. Just look at all the trickery they did for Blake.

No, I do not think we have learned that, and you also didn't answer the question.

Bryan Freedman's "bff" has been making the rounds of talk shows saying that Blake is considering suing her lawyers and that her lawyers made sure to conduct settlement negotiations in CA to avoid being sued. This indicates personal, direct knowledge of private conversations between Blake and her husband, Blake and her legal team, and within her legal team. You need to ask yourself:

(1) Why would Blake, her legal team, or anyone associated with them share this information with Bryan Freedman's "bff"?

(2) Could there be another motive for Bryan Freedman's friend to spread this rumor on podcasts and talk shows? Is it possible that by speculating about these things that he could not possibly have any personal knowledge, of he gets a conversation started online that is unfavorable to Blake, which is positive for both his close friend, Bryan Freedman, and Freedman's clients?

If you've watched this entire case unfold and are still convinced that when a *clearly* biased person speculates wildly on camera, that must reflect the "real truth" that is being hidden from you by the "lame stream" media, then you have learned exactly nothing.