Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are funny because you have lots of opinions on the legal issues but on this PO at least they have mostly been wrong. I am a lawyer but I do corporate law and we don’t ever have to produce texts tbh. But go off lol!

Do, I’m glad you admited that because it’s been very clear you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to litigation.

Haha what kind of law do you do because I’ve been more right than you on this PO for sure. Drop a comment and let me know. How are you feeling about Freedman’s positioning and argument on the PO right now?

I do litigation for large corporations. That’s different than corp law but I was in a hurry this morning. What do you do? I work with confidentiality stips and electronically stored information protocols all the time, and we deal with email, docs, and some messaging like through Teams, but I’ve never had to turn over texts or frankly even call logs before. Have you?

In general, instead of emptily mocking me, it would be more helpful if lawyers who disagree with me would describe their own experience and explain how you think I’m wrong. You know, like how I have described, logically and with quotations from the documents and the judge’s order, how you’ve been wrong about the PO and Freedman’s arguments about it.

DP
Yeah, no. You do not litigate for large corporations.

We’ve all explained the PO issue to you several times, and why much of what you seem to think will be AEO will not be. Let’s move on

"I do litigation for large corporations" is not something an actual lawyer would write. And texts are standard subjects of document requests/production. So stop playing make believe.

If texts are so standard then please answer the text production question above oh guru of text production. Also feel free to explain what kind of law you do, since not a single other person has lol.

I do employment law, these very cases. Depending on the context texts can be produced by screenshots or there are programs that pull them off the phone and they are produced on spreadsheet type documents. If needed sometimes you can subpoena the carrier for additional info.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I don’t follow this thread all day, has this been discussed? Blake and her team sound batshit insane. Allegedly recorded, tracked down, and then cyber stalked and cyber harassed some random girl and her mom who by coincidence happened to be at the same hotel Blake checked into. This is nutty.

https://perezhilton.com/tiktoker-claims-blake-lively-and-team-bullied-her-after-sxsw/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I don’t follow this thread all day, has this been discussed? Blake and her team sound batshit insane. Allegedly recorded, tracked down, and then cyber stalked and cyber harassed some random girl and her mom who by coincidence happened to be at the same hotel Blake checked into. This is nutty.

https://perezhilton.com/tiktoker-claims-blake-lively-and-team-bullied-her-after-sxsw/

The number of victims Blake and Ryan must have mercilessly bullied and intimidated over the years must be astronomical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I don’t follow this thread all day, has this been discussed? Blake and her team sound batshit insane. Allegedly recorded, tracked down, and then cyber stalked and cyber harassed some random girl and her mom who by coincidence happened to be at the same hotel Blake checked into. This is nutty.

https://perezhilton.com/tiktoker-claims-blake-lively-and-team-bullied-her-after-sxsw/

You know, you'd think Blake Lively would want to keep an incredibly low profile right now, or at the very least, pretend to be America's Sweetheart. What a trashy, ill-advised move on her part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I don’t follow this thread all day, has this been discussed? Blake and her team sound batshit insane. Allegedly recorded, tracked down, and then cyber stalked and cyber harassed some random girl and her mom who by coincidence happened to be at the same hotel Blake checked into. This is nutty.

https://perezhilton.com/tiktoker-claims-blake-lively-and-team-bullied-her-after-sxsw/

You know, you'd think Blake Lively would want to keep an incredibly low profile right now, or at the very least, pretend to be America's Sweetheart. What a trashy, ill-advised move on her part.

Super rattled and hyper paranoid millionaire bully being milked by a team of professional grifters. Also suggests her team and possibly her personally read and respond to this thread.

[Anonymous]

When it rains it pours. Apparently even Sharon Stone was a victim of Blake’s terror.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14498815/Sharon-Stone-DROPPED-Simple-Favor-Blake-Lively.html

[Anonymous]

For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I don’t follow this thread all day, has this been discussed? Blake and her team sound batshit insane. Allegedly recorded, tracked down, and then cyber stalked and cyber harassed some random girl and her mom who by coincidence happened to be at the same hotel Blake checked into. This is nutty.

https://perezhilton.com/tiktoker-claims-blake-lively-and-team-bullied-her-after-sxsw/

You know, you'd think Blake Lively would want to keep an incredibly low profile right now, or at the very least, pretend to be America's Sweetheart. What a trashy, ill-advised move on her part.

Agree, I truly don’t understand reactions like this. There have been rumors for years that Blake and Ryan absolutely hate anyone to know they have nannies. Which is ridiculous, they are working parents of course they have childcare and they shouldn’t shame people for using nannies or childcare, but anyway… They famously like to cover up nannies, even though they have multiple ones.

But the thing is, even if this random person photographed a nanny, a glimpse of Blake, a glimpse of the kids, whatever, she probably has like most of us a couple hundred followers. At worst she would post a few grainy bad photos fir her friends on social media and no one beyond them would ever know.

But now this is one more story that has gained traction. I saw it on another site that had picked it up and now it’s on Perez. Ridiculous.

I think back in the day, Blake and Ryan had control and could kill stories or squash anything. But it’s a different world now and it’s better to let a lot of this go so it naturally dies off, not double down and give it air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

Lol

Nuts but there might be BL trolls on here. After reading that Perez piece, I wouldn’t be surprised. Nuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

DP
Actually I think Sloanes Mtd is not good. Can only imagine what that cost her too. Oof. No wonder she’s trying for attys fees under anti SLAPP (not gonna happen)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When it rains it pours. Apparently even Sharon Stone was a victim of Blake’s terror.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14498815/Sharon-Stone-DROPPED-Simple-Favor-Blake-Lively.html

Huh? Where does it say that Blake has anything to do with Sharon Stone’s situation? That’s an utter stretch.