Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Sure are a lot of similarities though. I thought Freedman was a legal mastermind - shouldn’t he have been able to win this one for Flores? |
Anonymous
It sounds like he did “win”the case for Flores against Remington. They probably couldn’t make the case against Baldoni so stopped there. |
Anonymous
| BL and RR were at a horse farm in Rhode Island over the weekend. Not the kind of thing that would normally get press coverage but for some reason (hmm wonder why) the local town paper covered the story and gushed about how lovely the couple was. The article also noted that BL’s pal Taylor owned a home nearby so the couple is no stranger to the town. Their PR is in overdrive. And poor Taylor, BL’s still name dropping her smh. |
Anonymous
That's pretty funny. So I guess the next step is to see if Taylor’s publicist will state they didn't visit her, or let the implication go. |
Anonymous
They are really something. Taylor’s team doesn’t usually get in the mud like this. They will likely let go, or drop it to a friendly influencer like deux moi who will say my sources emailed me Taylor wasn’t in Rhode Island at that time or something like that. I doubt we will hear anything official. But if Taylor hears about this about it will piss her off. The thing is, even if they were together in Rhode Island, quietly, it speaks volumes that Taylor is not being seen in public with her. Taylor has a habit of taking women who are going through hard times and being seen with them….Selena when she was having her publicity troubles, sophie when she was going through a high profile divorce with the Jonas brother, etc. |
Anonymous
| OK, I had to do it. A quick Google search shows Taylor’s Rhode Island mansion is undergoing extensive renovations and an expansion through most of 2025 so she won’t be staying there - it started at the end of January and is ongoing. |
Anonymous
| The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in? |
Anonymous
I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho. |
Anonymous
Tell more! |
Anonymous
The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour. Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client). Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy. Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category. Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case. Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16. Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used. Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well. I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs. |
Anonymous
| Thanks for the report PP. I think judge may grant it because otherwise the parties will file motions every time they can't agree in meet and confer and I imagine he doesn't want to play referee. |
Anonymous
Maybe, but he (or a magistrate judge) will still have to referee it when Freedman comes back to the court to dispute the AEO designations which it sounded like Freedman was planning to do. I thought the judge might be signaling an intent to impose an AEO PO from his comments at the end noting that whatever he chose, public would still have access to the important stuff, but I could be wrong. I also thought it was crappy of Freedman to state that oh hey of course we agree medical records should be private - and then get a mental health dig in at Lively saying that she understood she had complained of being under emotional distress. That seemed weird and ago of him but that’s Freedman I guess. |
Anonymous
He might wind up playing referee anyway, since the proposed order would still allow for a meet and confer anytime a party wanted to lift the AEO designation. The moving parties even said they could just take it before the court if this became contentious. I thought this was dicey because judges don't love to hear "if this becomes a problem we can just come to you with every little argument." But it's probably going to happen either way. I think if he grants it, it will be limited. He seems pretty motivated to keep court proceedings transparent specifically because he knows interest is really high in the case and likely thinks if they start locking everything down, this can really erode public faith in the court and any outcomes from the case. I'm pro-Lively but I agree with him in this respect. I think the blanket AEO is a tough sell. I think they are doing it primarily because there are a bunch of third-parties (i.e. celebrities who are not parties to this case) who are freaking out right now that their texts/emails with not only Lively and Reynolds but also Leslie Sloane and Stephanie Jones could be made public. I think for Sloane in particular, she's worried this could have longterm damage to her business if clients or potential clients are worried about privacy with her. Her lawyer actually spoke first and I think made the best argument, though I also think there's a good likelihood that her MTD will succeed before this becomes an issue for her (she'd still be subject to discovery but it would likely be more narrow). TBH, I am having trouble getting worked up about this order specifically because I think the entire landscape of the case is going to change dramatically in the next few weeks. The MTDs are a much bigger deal right now. I know this order will impact how discovery proceeds after those MTDs are decided, but I view this as a sideshow. The real issue right now is the group pleading problem, how that gets resolved, and potentially the NYT defamation case being dismissed. If Baldoni's side repleads to resolve that issue, I think this case is going to start looking super different very soon. |
Anonymous
Yikes, he knows exactly what little nuggets to put out for the press to puck up. |
Anonymous
| Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over. |