Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not even really a “setback.” The jr associates here are acting like getting your discovery narrowed by the judge is some kind of disaster. The whole point was to freak out the other side with a broad request.

I don't think it's a disaster, but I think their subpoena was pointless and time wasting. I don't think it freaked the other side out at all. At most I can see the strategy was to ask for a very broad subpoena that any defendant would absolutely move to quash so they could get in a few silly jabs in the press about Justin and Wayfarer not wanting to show the "receipts" which is just not a strategy I respect. The whole point was they weren't asking for "the receipts" but a bunch of irrelevant, private information.

And yet there is nothing to indicate implementation of any plan ever! The most controversial language was Nathan and Abel agreeing that they were astonished that they didn’t have to act against Lively because of her own goals, and they agreed it was “sad” but “don’t like be a c-.”

"We are crushing on it reddit thanks to Jed" was a pretty good indicator. Baldoni quizzing them about bots and them saying that's not us is a good indicator that there was a paid astroturfing plan in motion that he didn't want to look obvious. I can't buy that they had this whole plan developed, things happened according to the plan, they discussed how they were crushing it, but then claim it actually all was organic. Perhaps the jury will disagree with me, but I think there's enough there for her claims to survive to trial. I'm not saying Lively is likeable. Indeed she had issues and part of their plan was leveraging her own past, real, issues and interviews to destroy her credibility in case her SH complaints should come to life.

Wondering if someone could explain astroturfing and what is legal and illegal? There was just an article that apparently Blake has purchased hundreds of thousands of fake Instagram followers to stop her very obvious drop in followers. I imagine that’s perfectly legal, but it is definitely deceptive to the public.

Is anything Jed is doing legal? Or we think everything is illegal?

PP. To my understanding astroturfing isn't illegal. I would argue it's protected under the first amendment. It's just speech saying someone sucks. You're just having someone else say it instead of saying it directly. It is deceptive and unethical. In order for it to be unlawful and actionable, IMO you need something more.

Astroturfing could be unlawful if it includes defamation, the planting of false statements of fact. As long as this campaign stuck to opinions and true facts, that's not unlawful. If they asked Flaa, or even paid her, to post the interview, since the interview is real, that wouldn't be unlawful, nor would it be unlawful, IMO, to hire people to upvote it on reddit and post comments that Blake sounds like a B.

Tortious interference in a business could be another one. Say you own a restaurant and your competitor hires people to post Yelp opinions that say your food sucks and the staff is rude. Those are opinions, but this is probably unlawful and you could sue.

And then there's her claim of retaliation, which is pretty novel and interesting. The astroturfing itself is not illegal, but it becomes illegal if she can prove it was done as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Kind of like firing a person or demoting a person or changing their work schedule is not illegal, but it becomes so when it's done in retaliation. Without this component she wouldn't have much of a case at all. If they had just had the dispute over her taking over the film, and she wanted to ice him out of the premiere, and then he hired crisis PR to plant stories saying she's awful, I don't believe she'd have a cause of action.

Great analogies. I actually think it underlines the uphill battle lively is facing. Firing someone for retaliation is illegal but firing someone for cause is not. Prior harassment complaints does not give someone a free pass from ever being disciplined or fired. So not only does lively need to prove there was a smear campaign, but she also needs to prove it was in response to the harassment. Given how poorly she treated baldoni and defamed him, it will be pretty easy for him to say his actions, which they can agree or disagree was a smear campaign, was in reaction to her smear campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYT has filed a motion to dismiss, the motion and some of the attachments (some interesting info there) are available on court listener already: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/106/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

My favorite quote so far: "Throughout their blunderbuss complaint, the Wayfarer Parties seek to drag The Times into their larger feud with Lively."

Blunderbuss. Perfect. Underused. Adding it to the arsenal.

Another great quote:

In fact, in this way, the Wayfarer Parties’ FAC is like that in Komatsu, which the court dismissed in part because the complaints’ length and “tangents” “make it difficult to understand exactly how the facts alleged provide a basis for Plaintiff’s claims—or which facts support which allegations—causing significant prejudice to Defendants who must sift through hundreds of pages ... to fully ascertain the nature of the charges against them.”

It's honestly a relief to see someone correctly describing that Wayfarer complaint as the meandering, publicity-focused mess it is. I've been waiting for this.

Hilarious coming from the same NYT that claimed they they sifted through thousands of pages of text messages. Now a few hundred pages of a complaint is too long? Their lawyers are almost as bad as Lively’s. The judge will be sick of them pretty quick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not even really a “setback.” The jr associates here are acting like getting your discovery narrowed by the judge is some kind of disaster. The whole point was to freak out the other side with a broad request.

I don't think it's a disaster, but I think their subpoena was pointless and time wasting. I don't think it freaked the other side out at all. At most I can see the strategy was to ask for a very broad subpoena that any defendant would absolutely move to quash so they could get in a few silly jabs in the press about Justin and Wayfarer not wanting to show the "receipts" which is just not a strategy I respect. The whole point was they weren't asking for "the receipts" but a bunch of irrelevant, private information.

And yet there is nothing to indicate implementation of any plan ever! The most controversial language was Nathan and Abel agreeing that they were astonished that they didn’t have to act against Lively because of her own goals, and they agreed it was “sad” but “don’t like be a c-.”

"We are crushing on it reddit thanks to Jed" was a pretty good indicator. Baldoni quizzing them about bots and them saying that's not us is a good indicator that there was a paid astroturfing plan in motion that he didn't want to look obvious. I can't buy that they had this whole plan developed, things happened according to the plan, they discussed how they were crushing it, but then claim it actually all was organic. Perhaps the jury will disagree with me, but I think there's enough there for her claims to survive to trial. I'm not saying Lively is likeable. Indeed she had issues and part of their plan was leveraging her own past, real, issues and interviews to destroy her credibility in case her SH complaints should come to life.

Wondering if someone could explain astroturfing and what is legal and illegal? There was just an article that apparently Blake has purchased hundreds of thousands of fake Instagram followers to stop her very obvious drop in followers. I imagine that’s perfectly legal, but it is definitely deceptive to the public.

Is anything Jed is doing legal? Or we think everything is illegal?

PP. To my understanding astroturfing isn't illegal. I would argue it's protected under the first amendment. It's just speech saying someone sucks. You're just having someone else say it instead of saying it directly. It is deceptive and unethical. In order for it to be unlawful and actionable, IMO you need something more.

Astroturfing could be unlawful if it includes defamation, the planting of false statements of fact. As long as this campaign stuck to opinions and true facts, that's not unlawful. If they asked Flaa, or even paid her, to post the interview, since the interview is real, that wouldn't be unlawful, nor would it be unlawful, IMO, to hire people to upvote it on reddit and post comments that Blake sounds like a B.

Tortious interference in a business could be another one. Say you own a restaurant and your competitor hires people to post Yelp opinions that say your food sucks and the staff is rude. Those are opinions, but this is probably unlawful and you could sue.

And then there's her claim of retaliation, which is pretty novel and interesting. The astroturfing itself is not illegal, but it becomes illegal if she can prove it was done as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Kind of like firing a person or demoting a person or changing their work schedule is not illegal, but it becomes so when it's done in retaliation. Without this component she wouldn't have much of a case at all. If they had just had the dispute over her taking over the film, and she wanted to ice him out of the premiere, and then he hired crisis PR to plant stories saying she's awful, I don't believe she'd have a cause of action.

Great analogies. I actually think it underlines the uphill battle lively is facing. Firing someone for retaliation is illegal but firing someone for cause is not. Prior harassment complaints does not give someone a free pass from ever being disciplined or fired. So not only does lively need to prove there was a smear campaign, but she also needs to prove it was in response to the harassment. Given how poorly she treated baldoni and defamed him, it will be pretty easy for him to say his actions, which they can agree or disagree was a smear campaign, was in reaction to her smear campaign.

I wonder as they get closer to trial if they are going to rely on more of her harassment of him. Right now they have stayed away from that angle, but there are tons of examples. Getting screamed at by Ryan in Blake’s apartment, not on neutral turf at all, especially when there were so many witnesses.

It also sounds like her constant demands could be harassment. They certainly have a ton of evidence that he had to spend a lot of time going back-and-forth trying to placate her and she was going well over her contract. She was hired as an actress and an EP. Even Sony said, check her contract, she was making demands that were inappropriate for her role and he felt forced to follow through as she was threatening to cost them millions by walking away every turn.

Finally, I do think the behaviors around the marketing could be considered harassment. I would like to see the texts to costar though maybe she did that in person when she flew Brandon and Isabella to events on her dime. She might’ve been smart enough not to have that in writing. But if Isabella is subpoenad, she is going to have to be honest about those conversations.

I imagine Blake will also have to defend why she had his name stripped from the movie. He was still a producer and the director so it just seems petty and is a form of harassing behavior. Also things like refusing to walk the red carpet within him, refusing to let him be in the premier. I really don’t understand how that is not harassment. If the roles were reversed and he was female and she was male we would be in such a rage right now over that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Eh, to me the MTD points out some serious flaws in the complaint. I think Freedman’s group pleading is a real problem for them wrt the NYT that will necessitate at minimum another amended complaint (though I note that NYT has suggested dismissal with prejudice on this basis alone since Freedman has already amended once - not sure they will prevail here). I do think parties usually try to avoid raising claims in the Complaint that simply do not exist in the jurisdiction where they are filing, and if doing so will at least drop a footnote re why another state’s law will apply so as not to look stupid with the judge, but ymmv. We’ll see what Freedman does in the Opposition brief and whether he tones down the bluster at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

Right, Jedbot? I know, it's crazy. For sure my boy Justin will get all Blake Lyingly's $$$ 😝

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

Right, Jedbot? I know, it's crazy. For sure my boy Justin will get all Blake Lyingly's $$$ 😝

Hi and thanks for being your nasty crazy self. Run off to claim that my post was the bad one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the spirit of being as on-topic as possible, here is how the NYT's MTD addresses the False Light claims in Wayfarer's lawsuit:

The Wayfarer Parties’ claim for false light invasion of privacy, asserted under California law, also fails. See FAC ¶¶ 332-39. As discussed above, see supra at 6-8, New York law applies to the Wayfarer Parties’ claims. But New York law does not recognize the tort of false light. See Matthews v. Malkus, 377 F. Supp. 2d 350, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Under New York law, invasion of privacy based on publicity which placed [a plaintiff] in false light is not a cognizable claim”); see also Costanza v. Seinfeld, 181 Misc. 2d 562, 564 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999) (noting that “New York law does not and never has allowed a common law claim for invasion of privacy”), aff'd as modified, 279 A.D.2d 255 (2001); Henry v. Fox News Network LLC, 629 F. Supp. 3d 136, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“New York does not recognize a separate cause of action for false light/invasion of privacy”). The Wayfarer Parties’ false light must, therefore, be dismissed.

Thank you! But did they call him Jason?

That would have been amazing, but alas, no. Turns out Katherine Bolger is slightly more vigilant than the OP of this thread in proofreading

It’s called a typo, bozos. And there’s no way to edit on here. You must be so proud of your copy editing skills

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

So this. The MTD is weak, overly focused on unconvincing technical arguments, arrogant and typical of this particular firms style. They are going to get wiped. The NYT should find new counsel asap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

So this. The MTD is weak, overly focused on unconvincing technical arguments, arrogant and typical of this particular firms style. They are going to get wiped. The NYT should find new counsel asap

😆 I guess we'll find out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

So this. The MTD is weak, overly focused on unconvincing technical arguments, arrogant and typical of this particular firms style. They are going to get wiped. The NYT should find new counsel asap

😆 I guess we'll find out!

I’ve got my popcorn ready

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

Right, Jedbot? I know, it's crazy. For sure my boy Justin will get all Blake Lyingly's $$$ 😝

Hi and thanks for being your nasty crazy self. Run off to claim that my post was the bad one!

DP but honestly I can’t even understand what you mean in your prior comment. “The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction?” I don’t understand what you mean, and moreover no one is arguing Baldoni doesn’t have jurisdiction, wtf? Post better, not more, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYT has filed a motion to dismiss, the motion and some of the attachments (some interesting info there) are available on court listener already: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/106/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

My favorite quote so far: "Throughout their blunderbuss complaint, the Wayfarer Parties seek to drag The Times into their larger feud with Lively."

Blunderbuss. Perfect. Underused. Adding it to the arsenal.

Another great quote:

In fact, in this way, the Wayfarer Parties’ FAC is like that in Komatsu, which the court dismissed in part because the complaints’ length and “tangents” “make it difficult to understand exactly how the facts alleged provide a basis for Plaintiff’s claims—or which facts support which allegations—causing significant prejudice to Defendants who must sift through hundreds of pages ... to fully ascertain the nature of the charges against them.”

It's honestly a relief to see someone correctly describing that Wayfarer complaint as the meandering, publicity-focused mess it is. I've been waiting for this.

Hilarious coming from the same NYT that claimed they they sifted through thousands of pages of text messages. Now a few hundred pages of a complaint is too long? Their lawyers are almost as bad as Lively’s. The judge will be sick of them pretty quick.

Exactly. Their lawyers are good legal technocrats, not true trial attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYT has filed a motion to dismiss, the motion and some of the attachments (some interesting info there) are available on court listener already: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/106/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

My favorite quote so far: "Throughout their blunderbuss complaint, the Wayfarer Parties seek to drag The Times into their larger feud with Lively."

Blunderbuss. Perfect. Underused. Adding it to the arsenal.

Another great quote:

In fact, in this way, the Wayfarer Parties’ FAC is like that in Komatsu, which the court dismissed in part because the complaints’ length and “tangents” “make it difficult to understand exactly how the facts alleged provide a basis for Plaintiff’s claims—or which facts support which allegations—causing significant prejudice to Defendants who must sift through hundreds of pages ... to fully ascertain the nature of the charges against them.”

It's honestly a relief to see someone correctly describing that Wayfarer complaint as the meandering, publicity-focused mess it is. I've been waiting for this.

Hilarious coming from the same NYT that claimed they they sifted through thousands of pages of text messages. Now a few hundred pages of a complaint is too long? Their lawyers are almost as bad as Lively’s. The judge will be sick of them pretty quick.

Exactly. Their lawyers are good legal technocrats, not true trial attorneys.

Yes, everyone knows judges are swayed by 200 pages of blurry, irrelevant text messages as opposed to a concise, technically excellent motion based on relevant precedent, logical arguments, and only the salient facts. I'm sure Liman is angrily throwing Bolger's motion at the wall right now and yelling at clerks, "not heavy enough! Where's all the extraneous and contradictory detail?! Nothing in here for TMZ to quote at all! Damn technocrats have no idea what they're doing!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the result of the MTD, the Times has made Freedman look like a bit of an idiot by calling out Freedman’s ling, vague complaint and “lump everyone together” pleading style. It’s a good shot across the bow by extremely competent attorneys, which is nice to see in the game here. Did Freedman even note the choice of law issue and lack of false light cause of action in NY? If not even in a footnote, that just makes him look stupid.

Meh, there was some flowery language typically of every motion to dismiss I’ve read, but I didn’t think it was particularly effective. Choice of law issues are typically developed in briefing, not complaints, which only need to establish proper jurisdiction (not at issue here). The big issue for The NY Times is their brief basically ignores their independent review and manipulation of the texts and their long history of contacts with Lively that predate the complaint. The reply briefing will not.

Exactly. The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction? One after another, along with faux-legal cites of BL’s complaint with the manipulation of texts as evidence that the crisis PR plan was retained, when there is utterly no evidence of that.

When the dust settles, the Lively parties will be making huge payments. It’s a question of when.

Right, Jedbot? I know, it's crazy. For sure my boy Justin will get all Blake Lyingly's $$$ 😝

Hi and thanks for being your nasty crazy self. Run off to claim that my post was the bad one!

DP but honestly I can’t even understand what you mean in your prior comment. “The second the NYT pleading but a bunch of attempted thread-killing inaccuracies flood the conversation here, claiming BL’s parties have already won and man how stupid is Freedman, did he not even pass Jurisdiction?” I don’t understand what you mean, and moreover no one is arguing Baldoni doesn’t have jurisdiction, wtf? Post better, not more, please.

You are so rude and intentionally foul. Do not come insulting me - I’m not posting paragraphs of irrelevant manipulative opinion as fact. PP snarked that Freedman was dumb and didn’t understand choice of law. Similar PP dropped in repeatedly over the last pages a chopped up portion of BL’s complaint misstating alleged retaliation as having been proven true.

Enough.