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:Notice it’s only the Blake supporters writing literally tomes about the need for more evidence. That’s because she doesn’t have near enough at present.

No, it's because they are engaging with the facts instead of just waiving their hands in the general direction of the case and saying "she seems like a liar." Baldoni filed a 224 page complaint, there is much to discuss.

And saying "we haven't seen all the evidence yet" in a case that has not even begun discovery in earnest is just rational. We haven't seen all the evidence yet.

The reason that this is silly is because Blake wants all the evidence out there because she is hemorrhaging followers and supporters. Hollywood is not on her side right now and they would want to get more evidence out if they had it. You ate treating this like a typical court case and it is not. It is a battle for public opinion. She didn’t just quietly file a complaint, she went to the New York Times, got a big splashy story, and made sure they put the complaint on a free PDF site that didn’t require the paywall.

You honestly think they want to wait till March 2026? Come on. In Hollywood that is an eternity. She is just coming off the biggest box office success of her career and she’s not able to capitalize on it. Every day that she’s not seen with Taylor Swift, people speculate more and more that their friendship is over. this period has not been good for Blake at all.

Lively wants the evidence to come out through legal proceedings. She's hired two law firms known for their work in the actual areas of law involved here (Mannatt for employment/entertainment law, and Gottlieb from Wilkie for extensive litigation experience on cases involving defamation and character attacks online). Her hires reflect a desire to actually see this case through via the courts, through a long discovery process and motions to dismiss, for SJ, and potentially trial.

Baldoni has hired a lawyer known for using PR tactics to get huge settlements or get the other side to drop the case due to lack of funds or simply exhaustion. He has very limited trial experience and no real legal specialty other than just generally "entertainment law." He's not well versed in employment, harassment, defamation, first amendment issues, etc. He's handled cases that touch on these issues but largely just to get them settled. He rarely tries cases.

Draw your own conclusions here.

Oh, that's really interesting. I didn't know Freedman was mostly all bark and very little trial experience. That fits.

Weird that the great lawyers that Blake has hired have yet to win a discovery motion. And also had a dismal performance at the hearing on the protective order. Here’s a hint, when the judge offers a compromise from the bench, it’s a bad idea to to turn it down.

You only think this because you get all your news on this case from TikTok and YouTube. Lively has had decent success in discovery so far. Right now the Lively/Baldoni parties are actually still in the stage where the judge is requiring them to do motions via letter and the hearings are fairly casual, so I think it's hard to call balls and strikes at this point but both sides have had wins and losses. I know the JB stans will never believe this, but Lively actually won her motion regarding extra-judicial statements (Freedman's litigation of the court via TMZ interview), he just did so by adopting the NY ethics rules governing the matter instead of by issuing Lively's order. The effect is the same -- Freedman is no longer giving interviews about this case and they've stopped "leaking evidence" to the media.

After MTDs it will get more real.

Also, Lively's lead attorney didn't handle the hearing the other day. He was on the call but had another attorney handle it, who is less experienced than he is. This makes a lot of sense because it's an early motion and what they were arguing over was honestly a little pointless. No matter how the judge rules on this motion, they can get things labeled AEO if they want to, this will just determine the procedure for either applying or removing the designation, making it either a little easier or a little harder. It's not a critical motion, so Gottlieb used it as a training exercise. The junior lawyer who argued it did okay, not amazing but not terrible. It was argued virtually, over the phone, so Gottlieb was likely conferring with her throughout the call, passing notes, etc. This is how baby lawyers become grown up lawyers at major law firms.

I’m actually a lawyer, which is why I know every bit of what you wrote above is complete and utter nonsense.

The so called “baby lawyer” is a partner at her firm who graduated from law school over a decade ago. She didn't perform badly because she is inexperienced, she just performed badly.

Maybe you should spend some time researching the lawyers on your side instead of just making stuff up.

Being a partner doesn't mean you aren't a baby. This is a high profile case. She's the junior lawyer on the matter.

DP but I very much think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice it’s only the Blake supporters writing literally tomes about the need for more evidence. That’s because she doesn’t have near enough at present.

No, it's because they are engaging with the facts instead of just waiving their hands in the general direction of the case and saying "she seems like a liar." Baldoni filed a 224 page complaint, there is much to discuss.

And saying "we haven't seen all the evidence yet" in a case that has not even begun discovery in earnest is just rational. We haven't seen all the evidence yet.

The reason that this is silly is because Blake wants all the evidence out there because she is hemorrhaging followers and supporters. Hollywood is not on her side right now and they would want to get more evidence out if they had it. You ate treating this like a typical court case and it is not. It is a battle for public opinion. She didn’t just quietly file a complaint, she went to the New York Times, got a big splashy story, and made sure they put the complaint on a free PDF site that didn’t require the paywall.

You honestly think they want to wait till March 2026? Come on. In Hollywood that is an eternity. She is just coming off the biggest box office success of her career and she’s not able to capitalize on it. Every day that she’s not seen with Taylor Swift, people speculate more and more that their friendship is over. this period has not been good for Blake at all.

Lively wants the evidence to come out through legal proceedings. She's hired two law firms known for their work in the actual areas of law involved here (Mannatt for employment/entertainment law, and Gottlieb from Wilkie for extensive litigation experience on cases involving defamation and character attacks online). Her hires reflect a desire to actually see this case through via the courts, through a long discovery process and motions to dismiss, for SJ, and potentially trial.

Baldoni has hired a lawyer known for using PR tactics to get huge settlements or get the other side to drop the case due to lack of funds or simply exhaustion. He has very limited trial experience and no real legal specialty other than just generally "entertainment law." He's not well versed in employment, harassment, defamation, first amendment issues, etc. He's handled cases that touch on these issues but largely just to get them settled. He rarely tries cases.

Draw your own conclusions here.

Oh, that's really interesting. I didn't know Freedman was mostly all bark and very little trial experience. That fits.

Weird that the great lawyers that Blake has hired have yet to win a discovery motion. And also had a dismal performance at the hearing on the protective order. Here’s a hint, when the judge offers a compromise from the bench, it’s a bad idea to to turn it down.

You only think this because you get all your news on this case from TikTok and YouTube. Lively has had decent success in discovery so far. Right now the Lively/Baldoni parties are actually still in the stage where the judge is requiring them to do motions via letter and the hearings are fairly casual, so I think it's hard to call balls and strikes at this point but both sides have had wins and losses. I know the JB stans will never believe this, but Lively actually won her motion regarding extra-judicial statements (Freedman's litigation of the court via TMZ interview), he just did so by adopting the NY ethics rules governing the matter instead of by issuing Lively's order. The effect is the same -- Freedman is no longer giving interviews about this case and they've stopped "leaking evidence" to the media.

After MTDs it will get more real.

Also, Lively's lead attorney didn't handle the hearing the other day. He was on the call but had another attorney handle it, who is less experienced than he is. This makes a lot of sense because it's an early motion and what they were arguing over was honestly a little pointless. No matter how the judge rules on this motion, they can get things labeled AEO if they want to, this will just determine the procedure for either applying or removing the designation, making it either a little easier or a little harder. It's not a critical motion, so Gottlieb used it as a training exercise. The junior lawyer who argued it did okay, not amazing but not terrible. It was argued virtually, over the phone, so Gottlieb was likely conferring with her throughout the call, passing notes, etc. This is how baby lawyers become grown up lawyers at major law firms.

I’m actually a lawyer, which is why I know every bit of what you wrote above is complete and utter nonsense.

The so called “baby lawyer” is a partner at her firm who graduated from law school over a decade ago. She didn't perform badly because she is inexperienced, she just performed badly.

Maybe you should spend some time researching the lawyers on your side instead of just making stuff up.

Being a partner doesn't mean you aren't a baby. This is a high profile case. She's the junior lawyer on the matter.

Again, show me that you have no clue what you are talking about. She graduated from law school more than a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice it’s only the Blake supporters writing literally tomes about the need for more evidence. That’s because she doesn’t have near enough at present.

No, it's because they are engaging with the facts instead of just waiving their hands in the general direction of the case and saying "she seems like a liar." Baldoni filed a 224 page complaint, there is much to discuss.

And saying "we haven't seen all the evidence yet" in a case that has not even begun discovery in earnest is just rational. We haven't seen all the evidence yet.

The reason that this is silly is because Blake wants all the evidence out there because she is hemorrhaging followers and supporters. Hollywood is not on her side right now and they would want to get more evidence out if they had it. You ate treating this like a typical court case and it is not. It is a battle for public opinion. She didn’t just quietly file a complaint, she went to the New York Times, got a big splashy story, and made sure they put the complaint on a free PDF site that didn’t require the paywall.

You honestly think they want to wait till March 2026? Come on. In Hollywood that is an eternity. She is just coming off the biggest box office success of her career and she’s not able to capitalize on it. Every day that she’s not seen with Taylor Swift, people speculate more and more that their friendship is over. this period has not been good for Blake at all.

Lively wants the evidence to come out through legal proceedings. She's hired two law firms known for their work in the actual areas of law involved here (Mannatt for employment/entertainment law, and Gottlieb from Wilkie for extensive litigation experience on cases involving defamation and character attacks online). Her hires reflect a desire to actually see this case through via the courts, through a long discovery process and motions to dismiss, for SJ, and potentially trial.

Baldoni has hired a lawyer known for using PR tactics to get huge settlements or get the other side to drop the case due to lack of funds or simply exhaustion. He has very limited trial experience and no real legal specialty other than just generally "entertainment law." He's not well versed in employment, harassment, defamation, first amendment issues, etc. He's handled cases that touch on these issues but largely just to get them settled. He rarely tries cases.

Draw your own conclusions here.

Oh, that's really interesting. I didn't know Freedman was mostly all bark and very little trial experience. That fits.

Weird that the great lawyers that Blake has hired have yet to win a discovery motion. And also had a dismal performance at the hearing on the protective order. Here’s a hint, when the judge offers a compromise from the bench, it’s a bad idea to to turn it down.

You only think this because you get all your news on this case from TikTok and YouTube. Lively has had decent success in discovery so far. Right now the Lively/Baldoni parties are actually still in the stage where the judge is requiring them to do motions via letter and the hearings are fairly casual, so I think it's hard to call balls and strikes at this point but both sides have had wins and losses. I know the JB stans will never believe this, but Lively actually won her motion regarding extra-judicial statements (Freedman's litigation of the court via TMZ interview), he just did so by adopting the NY ethics rules governing the matter instead of by issuing Lively's order. The effect is the same -- Freedman is no longer giving interviews about this case and they've stopped "leaking evidence" to the media.

After MTDs it will get more real.

Also, Lively's lead attorney didn't handle the hearing the other day. He was on the call but had another attorney handle it, who is less experienced than he is. This makes a lot of sense because it's an early motion and what they were arguing over was honestly a little pointless. No matter how the judge rules on this motion, they can get things labeled AEO if they want to, this will just determine the procedure for either applying or removing the designation, making it either a little easier or a little harder. It's not a critical motion, so Gottlieb used it as a training exercise. The junior lawyer who argued it did okay, not amazing but not terrible. It was argued virtually, over the phone, so Gottlieb was likely conferring with her throughout the call, passing notes, etc. This is how baby lawyers become grown up lawyers at major law firms.

I’m actually a lawyer, which is why I know every bit of what you wrote above is complete and utter nonsense.

The so called “baby lawyer” is a partner at her firm who graduated from law school over a decade ago. She didn't perform badly because she is inexperienced, she just performed badly.

Maybe you should spend some time researching the lawyers on your side instead of just making stuff up.

Being a partner doesn't mean you aren't a baby. This is a high profile case. She's the junior lawyer on the matter.

I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Again, complete nonsense. Caught in a lie and backpedaling furiously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Freedman did such a a bad job that the Judge basically endorsed his proposed treatment of AEO from the bench. When the order confirms that, we’ll be back to hearing how discovery motion wins are meaningless. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Again, complete nonsense. Caught in a lie and backpedaling furiously.

I’m the PP you’re responding to (the person who listened to the hearing and summarized it like 5 pages ago here) and not the PP who called Lively’s atty a baby lawyer. I am not backpedaling, I am a whole different person lol. But, I get it, Balboners gonna Balbone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Again, complete nonsense. Caught in a lie and backpedaling furiously.

I’m the PP you’re responding to (the person who listened to the hearing and summarized it like 5 pages ago here) and not the PP who called Lively’s atty a baby lawyer. I am not backpedaling, I am a whole different person lol. But, I get it, Balboners gonna Balbone.

You both post together all the time. Who knows what the “relationship” is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Again, complete nonsense. Caught in a lie and backpedaling furiously.

I’m the PP you’re responding to (the person who listened to the hearing and summarized it like 5 pages ago here) and not the PP who called Lively’s atty a baby lawyer. I am not backpedaling, I am a whole different person lol. But, I get it, Balboners gonna Balbone.

You both post together all the time. Who knows what the “relationship” is?

As has previously been discussed, you’re too chicken to be shown as a liar by taking this to Jeff, so you just continue to pepper the thread with this silliness every 20 pages. I sincerely IMPLORE you to take all your lame conspiracy theories to Website Feedback, and absent that, to cut it out.

[Anonymous]

Different lawyer who doesn't root for either side. I think we all understand some partners are less seasoned than others but calling a partner a baby lawyer who's getting notes passed to her, in response to a comment citing poor performance from Lively's side, was silly and misogynistic.

The judge has been fair so far and I believe will rule on the merits as he has on previous motions. On the protective order I suspect he rules for Freedman, but I also predict he'll rule against Freedman to strike his timeline, and will dismiss some claims against NYT and Sloan. The judge is not going to be swayed by Freedman's histrionics or Lively's lawyers performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Again, complete nonsense. Caught in a lie and backpedaling furiously.

I’m the PP you’re responding to (the person who listened to the hearing and summarized it like 5 pages ago here) and not the PP who called Lively’s atty a baby lawyer. I am not backpedaling, I am a whole different person lol. But, I get it, Balboners gonna Balbone.

You both post together all the time. Who knows what the “relationship” is?

As has previously been discussed, you’re too chicken to be shown as a liar by taking this to Jeff, so you just continue to pepper the thread with this silliness every 20 pages. I sincerely IMPLORE you to take all your lame conspiracy theories to Website Feedback, and absent that, to cut it out.

Too lazy actually and too disinterested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here. Someone on Reddit made a point that I hadn’t considered but it does make sense. They asked how was it ok for Stephanie Jones to give Abel’s cellphone to Lively?

Initially I had run with the explanation that it was a work phone and therefore Jones’ property. But, the redditer pointed out that PR agents usually have an NDA or other agreement with their clients to safeguard their privacy. Baldoni was a client of Jonesworks and Jones handed over text messages from a time period when Abel was her employee and Baldoni her client.

Blake claims she had a subpoena but we know that wasn’t true b/c there was no case yet. Jones clearly handed the phone over, which had to be a contract violation with Baldoni’s rights/privacy as a client. No wonder BF calls the texts BL gave to the NYT “the illegally obtained text messages”.

So back to my question—can BF get the texts thrown out? And if so, what does BL really have at that point to prove retaliation?

PP here’s. There’s a lot of lawyers on the thread right now but no one has answered my question from yesterday. Any thoughts on the legality of the text messages? If they were about Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) or to Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) wouldn’t Jones be in breach of contract or likely an NDA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different lawyer who doesn't root for either side. I think we all understand some partners are less seasoned than others but calling a partner a baby lawyer who's getting notes passed to her, in response to a comment citing poor performance from Lively's side, was silly and misogynistic.

The judge has been fair so far and I believe will rule on the merits as he has on previous motions. On the protective order I suspect he rules for Freedman, but I also predict he'll rule against Freedman to strike his timeline, and will dismiss some claims against NYT and Sloan. The judge is not going to be swayed by Freedman's histrionics or Lively's lawyers performance.

I lean towards Baldoni, but agree about exhibit A. I suspect even Freedman agrees but he would still deem it success as it entirely changed the media narrative. The next complaint will be the “real” one. I also have noted that the NYTimes did a good job with their motion so not completely biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Freedman did such a a bad job that the Judge basically endorsed his proposed treatment of AEO from the bench. When the order confirms that, we’ll be back to hearing how discovery motion wins are meaningless. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Freedman totally lost the NYT motion to stay discovery pretty hard, his whole Baldoni website circus shtick has been shut off by the judge, and he’s got a serious ~350 page group pleading problem (between his amended complaint and statement of alternative facts) that he has admitted to and that the judge has already indicated would be highly likely to lead to dismissal. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, Freedman is totally WINNING.