Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

You think you’re excoriating “team Baldoni” when you’re just embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

Of course the judge isnt saying that, but you and I both know this case has a decent chance of getting to trial if the P’s want it to.

And you obviously have a DWT connection but I’ll just say, we shall see. I’d hire DWT on appeal, not for a case to go to trial. Their trial experience is weak.

[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.

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.

It seems you like to impersonate a lawyer. You keep making statements about choice of law that suggest someone who didn’t attend law school. In federal court, where there is diversity of jurisdiction among the parties, there is no “default” jurisdiction. That just isn’t a thing, nor is it something The NY Times assert here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

You think you’re excoriating “team Baldoni” when you’re just embarrassing yourself.

I guess we'll see who's embarrassed in the end, won't we. I feel pretty comfortable over here on the side of "judge's like coherency, technical proficiency, and logic in legal arguments," but I suppose it will all shake out in the end. Maybe Freedman will surprise with an actually strong brief in response, who knows. So far he's only filed publicity stunts, but there's a first for everything.

[Anonymous]

To PP, look, I appreciate your friends at DWT are being paid a pile of $ to litigate this case- good old media liability coverage kicking in and NYT has tons of it- but that doesn’t mean Freedman’s doing a bad job and it doesn’t mean the NYT will prevail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

Of course the judge isnt saying that, but you and I both know this case has a decent chance of getting to trial if the P’s want it to.

And you obviously have a DWT connection but I’ll just say, we shall see. I’d hire DWT on appeal, not for a case to go to trial. Their trial experience is weak.

The defamation case against the NYT is not going to trial, no.

Bolger, who I don't know (in fact I have no current contacts at DWT that I know of, though people lateral all the time these days so who knows, perhaps an old colleague or law school classmate is there now) has submitted a very strong brief here. I am curious to see how Freedman et al responds. Freedman has been very thin on legal reasoning thus far, so I'm actually really curious to find out how he or the other attorneys working for Wayfarer respond to a very legally sound argument.

I do expect the case against the NYT to be dismissed at least in part. I will be curious to see if the arguments to dismiss it entirely due to the plaintiff's lack of a coherent argument in their amended complaint work -- I think that's an interesting argument and it could fall flat on its face or be successful, I have no idea. But even if that fails, I think the arguments on the merits will get everything dismissed against the NYT except the single actual instance of defamation they've alleged (the use of the term "smear campaign"). I could see that potentially surviving depending on what Wayfarer argues. But I think it's highly likely the rest will be dismissed at this stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!"[


For a party bringing a motion to dismiss, the scantier the complaint, the better for the moving party. That’s because all factual allegations made by the plaintiff are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. And that’s why I think the NYTimes chances are at best 50-50 on this motion. The NY Time’s request for a result of discovery is interesting, we’ll likely see a response there sooner than the motion to dismiss itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

Of course the judge isnt saying that, but you and I both know this case has a decent chance of getting to trial if the P’s want it to.

And you obviously have a DWT connection but I’ll just say, we shall see. I’d hire DWT on appeal, not for a case to go to trial. Their trial experience is weak.

The defamation case against the NYT is not going to trial, no.

Bolger, who I don't know (in fact I have no current contacts at DWT that I know of, though people lateral all the time these days so who knows, perhaps an old colleague or law school classmate is there now) has submitted a very strong brief here. I am curious to see how Freedman et al responds. Freedman has been very thin on legal reasoning thus far, so I'm actually really curious to find out how he or the other attorneys working for Wayfarer respond to a very legally sound argument.

I do expect the case against the NYT to be dismissed at least in part. I will be curious to see if the arguments to dismiss it entirely due to the plaintiff's lack of a coherent argument in their amended complaint work -- I think that's an interesting argument and it could fall flat on its face or be successful, I have no idea. But even if that fails, I think the arguments on the merits will get everything dismissed against the NYT except the single actual instance of defamation they've alleged (the use of the term "smear campaign"). I could see that potentially surviving depending on what Wayfarer argues. But I think it's highly likely the rest will be dismissed at this stage.

Yes, we know, you’ve said the exact thing five times now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

Of course the judge isnt saying that, but you and I both know this case has a decent chance of getting to trial if the P’s want it to.

And you obviously have a DWT connection but I’ll just say, we shall see. I’d hire DWT on appeal, not for a case to go to trial. Their trial experience is weak.

No, she doesn’t have a connection to DWT nor is she a litigator, she is just a big fan of Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP, look, I appreciate your friends at DWT are being paid a pile of $ to litigate this case- good old media liability coverage kicking in and NYT has tons of it- but that doesn’t mean Freedman’s doing a bad job and it doesn’t mean the NYT will prevail

Freedman's doing great PR-wise.

And regarding the Lively case, he's maneuvering well. I think it's somewhat evenly matched there at this point, but Freedman certainly isn't doing a bad job on that front.

I think Freedman is completely out over his skis in the defamation case against NYT and that the lawsuit was a bit of a stunt (which, again, from a PR perspective was very effective) and is unlikely to get much further than this.

I don't know anyone at Davis Wright. I wish I knew Kate Bolger, she's a great attorney!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

Of course the judge isnt saying that, but you and I both know this case has a decent chance of getting to trial if the P’s want it to.

And you obviously have a DWT connection but I’ll just say, we shall see. I’d hire DWT on appeal, not for a case to go to trial. Their trial experience is weak.

The defamation case against the NYT is not going to trial, no.

Bolger, who I don't know (in fact I have no current contacts at DWT that I know of, though people lateral all the time these days so who knows, perhaps an old colleague or law school classmate is there now) has submitted a very strong brief here. I am curious to see how Freedman et al responds. Freedman has been very thin on legal reasoning thus far, so I'm actually really curious to find out how he or the other attorneys working for Wayfarer respond to a very legally sound argument.

I do expect the case against the NYT to be dismissed at least in part. I will be curious to see if the arguments to dismiss it entirely due to the plaintiff's lack of a coherent argument in their amended complaint work -- I think that's an interesting argument and it could fall flat on its face or be successful, I have no idea. But even if that fails, I think the arguments on the merits will get everything dismissed against the NYT except the single actual instance of defamation they've alleged (the use of the term "smear campaign"). I could see that potentially surviving depending on what Wayfarer argues. But I think it's highly likely the rest will be dismissed at this stage.

Sure, sure, sure you don’t know anyone at DWT or Bolger. Right o, bc those are such household names for you to be tossing out.

And of course part of the complaint might be dismissed. That’s common, but it certainly doesn’t mean part of this case won’t go to trial, and that’s all that matters.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s worth noting that the motion to dismiss was written subject to a strict word count limitation. The poster oohing and aahing about its conciseness seems oblivious to this fact. The defendants’ response will likewise be concise, i.e. subject to a limitation on length.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!"

Of course the judge isnt saying that, but you and I both know this case has a decent chance of getting to trial if the P’s want it to.

And you obviously have a DWT connection but I’ll just say, we shall see. I’d hire DWT on appeal, not for a case to go to trial. Their trial experience is weak.

No, she doesn’t have a connection to DWT nor is she a litigator, she is just a big fan of Blake.

I'm the PP and I don't care about Blake Lively and the only think I've ever seen her in is Gossip Girl, which I only watched two seasons of before getting bored.

I think it's interesting that rather than engage on the legal arguments, some of you always go to "you must work for this law firm" or "you are a Blake Lively fan." If you want to spar over the cases, great! Happy to engage. I don't get the point of accusing everyone of being biased because... duh, everyone is biased. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the merits of the cases. I admit I'm biased in that I believe in very strong first amendment protections for journalists and I prefer for cases to be litigated in court based on laws and precedent rather than in the court of public opinion. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of acknowledging Freedman is very skilled at the way he litigates and it's working to some extent, or that I don't think there's any situation where a journalist should lose a defamation case. I'm more open minded than you give me credit for. But you have to *make the argument.*

Just dismissing me as biased is boring. I daresay it's as dull as Blake Lively's film oeuvre, which is pretty dull from what I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s worth noting that the motion to dismiss was written subject to a strict word count limitation. The poster oohing and aahing about its conciseness seems oblivious to this fact. The defendants’ response will likewise be concise, i.e. subject to a limitation on length.

Short and concise don't mean the same thing. The MTD is very effective and persuasive within the limit. Wayfarer's legal team has not shown a great deal of skill in being concise so far. We'll see what they put together here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP, look, I appreciate your friends at DWT are being paid a pile of $ to litigate this case- good old media liability coverage kicking in and NYT has tons of it- but that doesn’t mean Freedman’s doing a bad job and it doesn’t mean the NYT will prevail

Freedman's doing great PR-wise.

And regarding the Lively case, he's maneuvering well. I think it's somewhat evenly matched there at this point, but Freedman certainly isn't doing a bad job on that front.

I think Freedman is completely out over his skis in the defamation case against NYT and that the lawsuit was a bit of a stunt (which, again, from a PR perspective was very effective) and is unlikely to get much further than this.

I don't know anyone at Davis Wright. I wish I knew Kate Bolger, she's a great attorney!

And how would you know that if you don’t know anything about her or the firm?