Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.

It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.

I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.

That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.

But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.

I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.

If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.

It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.

It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.

She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.

But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.

I disagree that she has no relevant info. Both parties thought she did and included her in their Disclosures. Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .

Anytime Baldoni’s team can remind the public that Taylor has left the friendship is helpful to them. Anytime they can generate headlines of Taylor’s team saying they want no part of this is a reminder that she’s not helping out her former friend.

Ok but this is a court case. The NY jury could care less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.

It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.

I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.

That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.

But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.

I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.

If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.

It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.

It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.

She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.

But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.

I disagree that she has no relevant info. Both parties thought she did and included her in their Disclosures. Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .

What everyone is failing to understand is that a party is required to list a to e that may have information relevant to the case. Taylor’s attendance at that meeting means that both sides have to list her. You don’t get to choose to leave off people that have information. The other side is entitled to that list. So listing her was appropriate and not an option to leave off.

The idea that Liana is corrupt is insane. What he is — is an old school imperial federal judge who is way smarter than most everyone in this case. People like him rule the courtroom. Blake’s lawyers are NY big firm lawyers and they know how to act. Frankly there are very few LA entertainment lawyers that can even function in the SDNY. The way you act and talk is different. It was a mistake to use an LA lawyer.

Part of what is required is absolute candor. Spin sure but not even the hint of a lie.

This exactly. It's embarrassing that so many of the influencer lawyers are missing these aspects of the case. It really betrays a lot of ignorance.

Another major difference between Blake attorneys and Baldonis is that Blake's lawyers are litigation specialists. It's all they do, primarily in federal court and mostly on fairly complex cases. Whereas Baldoni's lawyers specialize in a certain kind of client (famous, sometimes also wealthy, often in entertainment) but are much more general about the kinds of law they practice. They do contract disputes, employment issues, family law, even some criminal issues. Even much of the litigation they do is focused much more on settlement and managing the PR fallout than on the underlying legal issues, as we've seen.

I think bringing on Garafolo was an attempt to even this out a little but it's still not enough. Garafolo is still at Liner Freedman, and just doesn't have the resources or expertise around her that Gottlieb or the Manatt team do.

Baldoni really should bring in a proper SDNY litigator if this thing is really going to trial. Though at this point most probably won't want to touch it because they've made so many mistakes that are now coming back to bite them and they will go into trial very disadvantaged by the lack of proper discovery on their part, for instance.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure Arlington mom will be giddy. WF has hired two additional lawyers, one a trial lawyer and the other an appellate lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Liman actually hasn’t been a federal judge for very long, he’s a Trump appointee. And a nepotism baby, just like Blake.

I don’t think anyone said he was corrupt, just incredibly biased. He’s already been sanctioned once and had a decision reversed in another matter where he failed to disclose his financial interest in one of the parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure Arlington mom will be giddy. WF has hired two additional lawyers, one a trial lawyer and the other an appellate lawyer.

Bumping so Arlington mom can get to work researching their life history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman actually hasn’t been a federal judge for very long, he’s a Trump appointee. And a nepotism baby, just like Blake.

I don’t think anyone said he was corrupt, just incredibly biased. He’s already been sanctioned once and had a decision reversed in another matter where he failed to disclose his financial interest in one of the parties.

I don't think you know what a nepo baby is. It's not someone whose parent worked in the same field. A huge number of judge had lawyers for parents. Just like a lot of doctors had parents who were doctors. Unless the parent is in a position to directly hire or force the hiring of their kid, that's not nepotism so much as statistics. People do what they know.

I am unaware of Blake's parents' jobs, but the fact that I've never heard of either of them indicates that she is not a nepo baby on the level of say Gwyneth Paltrow (who was cast in her first several jobs because her dad was a big deal Hollywood producer and Steven Spielberg was a close family friend and her godfather) or Maude Apatow (who got her start in acting as a child appearing in her dad's films and just directed her first feature film starring her famous mom, a project for which she never would have gotten financing or studio support if she wasn't an Apatow).

We can't start calling everyone who didn't grow up in abject poverty or who selects the same or similar field as one of their parents a nepo baby. That would make half the population nepo babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure Arlington mom will be giddy. WF has hired two additional lawyers, one a trial lawyer and the other an appellate lawyer.

Bumping so Arlington mom can get to work researching their life history.

It's not bumping when it's one of the last two comments and it was posted like 10 minutes ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman actually hasn’t been a federal judge for very long, he’s a Trump appointee. And a nepotism baby, just like Blake.

I don’t think anyone said he was corrupt, just incredibly biased. He’s already been sanctioned once and had a decision reversed in another matter where he failed to disclose his financial interest in one of the parties.

I don't think you know what a nepo baby is. It's not someone whose parent worked in the same field. A huge number of judge had lawyers for parents. Just like a lot of doctors had parents who were doctors. Unless the parent is in a position to directly hire or force the hiring of their kid, that's not nepotism so much as statistics. People do what they know.

I am unaware of Blake's parents' jobs, but the fact that I've never heard of either of them indicates that she is not a nepo baby on the level of say Gwyneth Paltrow (who was cast in her first several jobs because her dad was a big deal Hollywood producer and Steven Spielberg was a close family friend and her godfather) or Maude Apatow (who got her start in acting as a child appearing in her dad's films and just directed her first feature film starring her famous mom, a project for which she never would have gotten financing or studio support if she wasn't an Apatow).

We can't start calling everyone who didn't grow up in abject poverty or who selects the same or similar field as one of their parents a nepo baby. That would make half the population nepo babies.

Sweetie, Blake’s first film appearance was in a film directed by her dad. She’s a nepo baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure Arlington mom will be giddy. WF has hired two additional lawyers, one a trial lawyer and the other an appellate lawyer.

Not Arlington mom (interested to hear her take though), but I think this is too little, too late. These are very well respected litigators but they are inheriting a case where discovery was conducted with no apparent eye towards winning at trial and where the overall strategy may fundamentally undermine their defense.

Also while for most of this litigation I have assumed that Blake was paying more for her representation, I now suspect Baldoni's/Wayfarer's legal bills are going to be the higher total. Blake has retained a more expensive team overall from the start, but I've been impressed with the way Gottlieb and Manatt have tag-teamed on her representation (in a way that likely limits her costs somewhat especially for what I'm sure are astronomical fees for Gottlieb's time), plus they appear to be executing a pretty efficient and thought out plan without a ton of scrambling and last minute changes, and it's worked for her so far. On the other side Wayfarer's legal problems appear worse now than they were when this all started, they now employ three different firms, and four of their lawyers are high dollar, high end attorneys. it just looks like a mess and not at all efficient. And it looks like Sarowitz will be on the hook for all of it if they lose in the insurance disputes, which seems likely due to their own HR and notice failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman actually hasn’t been a federal judge for very long, he’s a Trump appointee. And a nepotism baby, just like Blake.

I don’t think anyone said he was corrupt, just incredibly biased. He’s already been sanctioned once and had a decision reversed in another matter where he failed to disclose his financial interest in one of the parties.

I don't think you know what a nepo baby is. It's not someone whose parent worked in the same field. A huge number of judge had lawyers for parents. Just like a lot of doctors had parents who were doctors. Unless the parent is in a position to directly hire or force the hiring of their kid, that's not nepotism so much as statistics. People do what they know.

I am unaware of Blake's parents' jobs, but the fact that I've never heard of either of them indicates that she is not a nepo baby on the level of say Gwyneth Paltrow (who was cast in her first several jobs because her dad was a big deal Hollywood producer and Steven Spielberg was a close family friend and her godfather) or Maude Apatow (who got her start in acting as a child appearing in her dad's films and just directed her first feature film starring her famous mom, a project for which she never would have gotten financing or studio support if she wasn't an Apatow).

We can't start calling everyone who didn't grow up in abject poverty or who selects the same or similar field as one of their parents a nepo baby. That would make half the population nepo babies.

Sweetie, Blake’s first film appearance was in a film directed by her dad. She’s a nepo baby.

Never heard of him or that movie, sorry.

In any case, Judge Liman is definitely not a nepo baby. I am aware of his background and know who his dad was and that doesn't count. That's like saying my [excellent] neurologist is a nepo baby because her father was also a doctor. It's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni is also a nepo baby. Who isn't in Hollywood? Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.

It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.

I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.

That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.

But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.

I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.

If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.

It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.

It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.

She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.

But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.

I disagree that she has no relevant info. Both parties thought she did and included her in their Disclosures. Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .

Anytime Baldoni’s team can remind the public that Taylor has left the friendship is helpful to them. Anytime they can generate headlines of Taylor’s team saying they want no part of this is a reminder that she’s not helping out her former friend.

Ok but this is a court case. The NY jury could care less.

Right, but Blake and Ryan are public figures. Their careers depend on their reputation, losing a friendship with Taylor Swift matters to their career and their businesses - at least to Blakes.

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure Arlington mom will be giddy. WF has hired two additional lawyers, one a trial lawyer and the other an appellate lawyer.

Not Arlington mom (interested to hear her take though), but I think this is too little, too late. These are very well respected litigators but they are inheriting a case where discovery was conducted with no apparent eye towards winning at trial and where the overall strategy may fundamentally undermine their defense.

Also while for most of this litigation I have assumed that Blake was paying more for her representation, I now suspect Baldoni's/Wayfarer's legal bills are going to be the higher total. Blake has retained a more expensive team overall from the start, but I've been impressed with the way Gottlieb and Manatt have tag-teamed on her representation (in a way that likely limits her costs somewhat especially for what I'm sure are astronomical fees for Gottlieb's time), plus they appear to be executing a pretty efficient and thought out plan without a ton of scrambling and last minute changes, and it's worked for her so far. On the other side Wayfarer's legal problems appear worse now than they were when this all started, they now employ three different firms, and four of their lawyers are high dollar, high end attorneys. it just looks like a mess and not at all efficient. And it looks like Sarowitz will be on the hook for all of it if they lose in the insurance disputes, which seems likely due to their own HR and notice failures.

This is the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this thread. Blame subpoenaed well over a hundred content creators and then withdrew nearly all of them after service. She has filed literally hundreds of pages seeking attorneys fees and sanctions that have been ignored by the Court. Her attorneys are not saving her money, they are actively bilking her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman actually hasn’t been a federal judge for very long, he’s a Trump appointee. And a nepotism baby, just like Blake.

I don’t think anyone said he was corrupt, just incredibly biased. He’s already been sanctioned once and had a decision reversed in another matter where he failed to disclose his financial interest in one of the parties.

I don't think you know what a nepo baby is. It's not someone whose parent worked in the same field. A huge number of judge had lawyers for parents. Just like a lot of doctors had parents who were doctors. Unless the parent is in a position to directly hire or force the hiring of their kid, that's not nepotism so much as statistics. People do what they know.

I am unaware of Blake's parents' jobs, but the fact that I've never heard of either of them indicates that she is not a nepo baby on the level of say Gwyneth Paltrow (who was cast in her first several jobs because her dad was a big deal Hollywood producer and Steven Spielberg was a close family friend and her godfather) or Maude Apatow (who got her start in acting as a child appearing in her dad's films and just directed her first feature film starring her famous mom, a project for which she never would have gotten financing or studio support if she wasn't an Apatow).

We can't start calling everyone who didn't grow up in abject poverty or who selects the same or similar field as one of their parents a nepo baby. That would make half the population nepo babies.

Sweetie, Blake’s first film appearance was in a film directed by her dad. She’s a nepo baby.

Never heard of him or that movie, sorry.

In any case, Judge Liman is definitely not a nepo baby. I am aware of his background and know who his dad was and that doesn't count. That's like saying my [excellent] neurologist is a nepo baby because her father was also a doctor. It's nonsense.

Liman was entirely educated at schools were he was a legacy and/or his family had given significant money. He wasn’t particularly known or respected during his legal career. He wouldn’t be a judge today if his dad wasn’t a famous attorney.

You might as well argue RFK isn’t a nepo baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure Arlington mom will be giddy. WF has hired two additional lawyers, one a trial lawyer and the other an appellate lawyer.

Not Arlington mom (interested to hear her take though), but I think this is too little, too late. These are very well respected litigators but they are inheriting a case where discovery was conducted with no apparent eye towards winning at trial and where the overall strategy may fundamentally undermine their defense.

Also while for most of this litigation I have assumed that Blake was paying more for her representation, I now suspect Baldoni's/Wayfarer's legal bills are going to be the higher total. Blake has retained a more expensive team overall from the start, but I've been impressed with the way Gottlieb and Manatt have tag-teamed on her representation (in a way that likely limits her costs somewhat especially for what I'm sure are astronomical fees for Gottlieb's time), plus they appear to be executing a pretty efficient and thought out plan without a ton of scrambling and last minute changes, and it's worked for her so far. On the other side Wayfarer's legal problems appear worse now than they were when this all started, they now employ three different firms, and four of their lawyers are high dollar, high end attorneys. it just looks like a mess and not at all efficient. And it looks like Sarowitz will be on the hook for all of it if they lose in the insurance disputes, which seems likely due to their own HR and notice failures.

This is the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this thread. Blame subpoenaed well over a hundred content creators and then withdrew nearly all of them after service. She has filed literally hundreds of pages seeking attorneys fees and sanctions that have been ignored by the Court. Her attorneys are not saving her money, they are actively bilking her.

Blame is an interesting choice by autocorrect, but I meant Blake.