Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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

Wow. Now I know you’re not a lawyer. “unconvincing technical arguments” 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ugh, are you not familiar with other people in your industry who do good work? Lawyers are also like academics in that a lot of their work is published and read by others in the industry even if you have no connection to the thing they are working on or their organization.

Do you really find it surprising that the NYT's 1st Amendment lawyer would be well known and respected?

You can’t answer the question? What industry do you work in? Bc no, most lawyers - even lawyers working around media- aren’t going to know DWT or Bolger. You’re an insider, but sure, keep lying. Fwiw, I am as well.

I don’t think she is an insider, she got their names off the brief.

You might be right. It’s just so preposterous, I feel the need to argue over it. So maybe she’s not an actual legal insider, but shes pro Blake for reasons that don’t make sense other than her having some personal bias.

I’m not pro Blake but that’s her prerogative. Yes, her post are partisan but most on this thread are, one side or the other.

She doesn’t strike me as a random pro Blake poster, and she’s clearly lying about something to try to claim she’s just a random lawyer who happens to read and follow a not very well known firm and lawyer who is near retirement age who sorry, pretty much no one would claim to follow and know the work of unless they are an insider in this very small world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

[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

Wow. Now I know you’re not a lawyer. “unconvincing technical arguments” 🤡

I’m a lawyer. This case has a very good shot of going to trial if Ps want to go there. But we shall see… and at trial, this isn’t the law firm you want

[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!

+1. On the SH/retaliation case, Baldoni is going to need a more mainstream white shoe firm to handle constructing the complicated timeline that shows he was taking action against her smears, not in retaliation. The legal analysis here isn’t complicated but you need a lot of focus and executive function to nail it all down. Freedman is tops at what he does but probably not at this kind of detailed work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

We can agree that you are proficient with google, congrats.
And how would you know that if you don’t know anything about her or the firm?

Ugh, are you not familiar with other people in your industry who do good work? Lawyers are also like academics in that a lot of their work is published and read by others in the industry even if you have no connection to the thing they are working on or their organization.

Do you really find it surprising that the NYT's 1st Amendment lawyer would be well known and respected?

You can’t answer the question? What industry do you work in? Bc no, most lawyers - even lawyers working around media- aren’t going to know DWT or Bolger. You’re an insider, but sure, keep lying. Fwiw, I am as well.

You don't think most lawyers know Davis Wright? Where did you go to law school? And Bolger is a top ranked 1st Amendment lawyer and has been for years. She used to be with a little media/first amendment boutique in NYC that was really well respect. I can't remember the name. Levine something maybe? She's repped a bunch of major media companies in 1st amendment cases. I do not know her personally and don't know people at DWT but I've definitely heard of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ugh, are you not familiar with other people in your industry who do good work? Lawyers are also like academics in that a lot of their work is published and read by others in the industry even if you have no connection to the thing they are working on or their organization.

Do you really find it surprising that the NYT's 1st Amendment lawyer would be well known and respected?

You can’t answer the question? What industry do you work in? Bc no, most lawyers - even lawyers working around media- aren’t going to know DWT or Bolger. You’re an insider, but sure, keep lying. Fwiw, I am as well.

I don’t think she is an insider, she got their names off the brief.

You might be right. It’s just so preposterous, I feel the need to argue over it. So maybe she’s not an actual legal insider, but shes pro Blake for reasons that don’t make sense other than her having some personal bias.

Ffs. Pointing out that The New York Effin Times has a good first amendment team is not being “pro Blake.” Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ugh, are you not familiar with other people in your industry who do good work? Lawyers are also like academics in that a lot of their work is published and read by others in the industry even if you have no connection to the thing they are working on or their organization.

Do you really find it surprising that the NYT's 1st Amendment lawyer would be well known and respected?

You can’t answer the question? What industry do you work in? Bc no, most lawyers - even lawyers working around media- aren’t going to know DWT or Bolger. You’re an insider, but sure, keep lying. Fwiw, I am as well.

You don't think most lawyers know Davis Wright? Where did you go to law school? And Bolger is a top ranked 1st Amendment lawyer and has been for years. She used to be with a little media/first amendment boutique in NYC that was really well respect. I can't remember the name. Levine something maybe? She's repped a bunch of major media companies in 1st amendment cases. I do not know her personally and don't know people at DWT but I've definitely heard of her.

No, most lawyers (outside of a fairly small group of media lawyers) don’t know DWT or Bolger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

I would argue the entire NYTs case is not that important to his claim. I think he filed it for publicity reasons and it worked. NYTs is right that it just lumps NYT in with all the other defendants and fails to articulate actual defamatory actions except maybe this one mention of "smear campaign" that is absolutely buried in the complaint. I think this case could be dismissed, as well as the one against Sloane (her team's MTD was also very strong) and he'd still be in pretty much the same position as to Lively.

But of course if I say that I think those MTDs will prevail and Baldoni will lose those claims, that means I'm "siding" with Lively. Because obviously even though this case is about two mediocre actors I don't care about at all, we all must be Team Somebody and you can't just be interested in the case as a legal exercise. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

+1. On the SH/retaliation case, Baldoni is going to need a more mainstream white shoe firm to handle constructing the complicated timeline that shows he was taking action against her smears, not in retaliation. The legal analysis here isn’t complicated but you need a lot of focus and executive function to nail it all down. Freedman is tops at what he does but probably not at this kind of detailed work.

I disagree. He’s been doing great so far and any decent lawyer can organize facts. Perhaps if there was a complicated issue of law, but that would likely affect all the defendants and the other law firms, which include some well known litigation boutiques, could help out there.

[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.

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

Wow. Now I know you’re not a lawyer. “unconvincing technical arguments” 🤡

I’m a lawyer. This case has a very good shot of going to trial if Ps want to go there. But we shall see… and at trial, this isn’t the law firm you want

I think you’re likely a 1L at Touro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ugh, are you not familiar with other people in your industry who do good work? Lawyers are also like academics in that a lot of their work is published and read by others in the industry even if you have no connection to the thing they are working on or their organization.

Do you really find it surprising that the NYT's 1st Amendment lawyer would be well known and respected?

You can’t answer the question? What industry do you work in? Bc no, most lawyers - even lawyers working around media- aren’t going to know DWT or Bolger. You’re an insider, but sure, keep lying. Fwiw, I am as well.

I don’t think she is an insider, she got their names off the brief.

You might be right. It’s just so preposterous, I feel the need to argue over it. So maybe she’s not an actual legal insider, but shes pro Blake for reasons that don’t make sense other than her having some personal bias.

Ffs. Pointing out that The New York Effin Times has a good first amendment team is not being “pro Blake.” Come on.

It’s not that, of course a media co has first amendment protections, it’s her claims to know this firm and lawyer specifically even though she’s allegedly not related at all bc they are so famous and well known outside of their niche industry, and that lawyers who don’t work in this space follow her cases etc. Preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ugh, are you not familiar with other people in your industry who do good work? Lawyers are also like academics in that a lot of their work is published and read by others in the industry even if you have no connection to the thing they are working on or their organization.

Do you really find it surprising that the NYT's 1st Amendment lawyer would be well known and respected?

You can’t answer the question? What industry do you work in? Bc no, most lawyers - even lawyers working around media- aren’t going to know DWT or Bolger. You’re an insider, but sure, keep lying. Fwiw, I am as well.

You don't think most lawyers know Davis Wright? Where did you go to law school? And Bolger is a top ranked 1st Amendment lawyer and has been for years. She used to be with a little media/first amendment boutique in NYC that was really well respect. I can't remember the name. Levine something maybe? She's repped a bunch of major media companies in 1st amendment cases. I do not know her personally and don't know people at DWT but I've definitely heard of her.

No, most lawyers (outside of a fairly small group of media lawyers) don’t know DWT or Bolger.

Davis Wright is a top Seattle firm with a national profile and several respected specialties. That's largely how I know them. I think it's weird to be totally unfamiliar with the name, it would be like not having heard of McGuire Woods or Wilson Sonisini. These are just well known firms in corporate law. I first became aware of Davis Wright during on campus interviewing in law school when friends looking at West Coast firms interviewed there. I've encountered them several times in my career repping Pacific Northwest-based companies.

If I was talking to a lawyer and mentioned Davis Wright and they said "huh? never heard of them" I would think they were kind of oblivious.