Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

look, if you don’t know the name of most of the big law firms (including DWT) and don’t have the discernment to figure out which attorneys are well known in the media/first amendment bar … then probably you shouldn’t be posting as if you have some great font of insight into a defamation case against the preeminent media institution in the nation with decades of experience defending itself against defamation suits, and was the name plaintiff in literally the most important 1A defamation case.

I know these firms obviously - there are a relatively small handful that might have been chosen for defense in this case- but I’m perfectly aware that almost none of my lawyer friends and colleague outside this industry do.

Look, stop lying and just move on. You’ve been called out. Stop doubling down.

Someone has been called out and it’s not me.

Actually it is. But sure, keep calling me a 1L from touro. You sound like an idiot, or very young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dp, but I agree and I’ve been practicing law for quite a while. On a motion to dismiss, everything alleged in the complaint must be taken as true. The NY Times simply ignored the allegations about The NY Times reliance on materials outside the complaint, such as interactions with a lively going back months and their own purported independent review and use/manipulation of texts. I don’t think think they get out of the case at the MTD stage. Perhaps at summary judgement, but that depends on what discovery uncovers.

I mean yes, it’s always hard to beat a MTD. My comment was about the PP characterizing legal analysis as “unconvincing technical arguments.” That’s the kind of thing hacks with no understanding of the law say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You show your stripes by this comment. You think of yourself as elite and from the ‘right’ schools and can’t admit that scrappy savvy lawyers like Freedman might trump lawyers with fancy pedigree making precise legal arguments, while carefully preserving little nuggets for appeal (bc that’s where these types of lawyers are best, not in a court room in front of a jury). But again, we shall see…

True, it’s well known than federal judges hate precise legal argument.

Lol

The issue is the media storm in this case will create immense pressure on the judge

[Anonymous]

*I mean win a MTD

[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!

+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.

You can't possible be a real attorney. Maybe a law student. If you are an actual member of a bar... sad!

You just unmasked yourself again. It’s the poster who’s been wrong about every motion ruled on this far, but starts insulting people when they disagree with her. Too bad you are like 0 for 6 with the legal predictions.

I truly have no idea what you are talking about. I have not made predictions on any of the motions thus far (there've only been like two? and they are procedural?)

Gaslighting won’t work, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No one said that it would be shocking if a non media lawyer knew the name of a decent sized firm. Sure. It’s the claim that a random lawyer would know and follow their work in this space, and Bolger in particular. Not happening. Stop lying and move on

Here are the Chambers rankings for 1A law in NYC: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/media-entertainment-first-amendment-litigation-new-york-5:700:12806:1

Click on Davis Wright's profile and check out the notable practitioners, and then explain to me how it's impossible that someone who follows first amendment media cases like this one couldn't possibly have heard of Bolger before this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You show your stripes by this comment. You think of yourself as elite and from the ‘right’ schools and can’t admit that scrappy savvy lawyers like Freedman might trump lawyers with fancy pedigree making precise legal arguments, while carefully preserving little nuggets for appeal (bc that’s where these types of lawyers are best, not in a court room in front of a jury). But again, we shall see…

True, it’s well known than federal judges hate precise legal argument.

Lol

The issue is the media storm in this case will create immense pressure on the judge

Somehow I think he'll be okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No one said that it would be shocking if a non media lawyer knew the name of a decent sized firm. Sure. It’s the claim that a random lawyer would know and follow their work in this space, and Bolger in particular. Not happening. Stop lying and move on

so you think the only way someone would know of Davis Wright and their top media lawyer is if they are doing PR for Blake Lively, is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

[Anonymous]

I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

DP here.

Could you explain what your point is then? You seem mad that someone had heard of DWT (a large AmLaw 100 firm that is well known to most attorneys practicing at a high level) or Kate Bolger (one of the top 1A lawyers in NYC, like in a group of 3, maybe 4, people) but actually these are normal things for the kind of lawyer likely to spend their downtime reading up on this particular case. Why are you so worked up about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

DP here.

Could you explain what your point is then? You seem mad that someone had heard of DWT (a large AmLaw 100 firm that is well known to most attorneys practicing at a high level) or Kate Bolger (one of the top 1A lawyers in NYC, like in a group of 3, maybe 4, people) but actually these are normal things for the kind of lawyer likely to spend their downtime reading up on this particular case. Why are you so worked up about it.

This is so idiotic. Those aren’t my posts. Again, a little time spent reading and less jumping to conclusions would go a long way. I personally could care less whether anyone has heard of DWT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

No, it’s a great question! Whether it goes to trial depends on whether the judge decides that there is an issue of fact to decide that fit a particular legal claim. Issues of fact go to trial. But in some civil courts cases the parties elect for the judge to be the fact finder in the trial - I’m actually not sure of how that gets done. I think the plaintiff decides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

DP here.

Could you explain what your point is then? You seem mad that someone had heard of DWT (a large AmLaw 100 firm that is well known to most attorneys practicing at a high level) or Kate Bolger (one of the top 1A lawyers in NYC, like in a group of 3, maybe 4, people) but actually these are normal things for the kind of lawyer likely to spend their downtime reading up on this particular case. Why are you so worked up about it.

This is so idiotic. Those aren’t my posts. Again, a little time spent reading and less jumping to conclusions would go a long way. I personally could care less whether anyone has heard of DWT.

Anyone who bothers to read the posts in this thread could see that, btw. Personally think it’s the same person posting both sides of the DWT to distract attention from the lawyers pointing out weaknesses in the motion to dismiss.