Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

The movie was filmed in New Jersey. Some promotion was probably done in NY of course, but the movie was promoted globally. We don’t really know where the article was researched and drafted, we’ll need discovery for that. This is the digital age. Meghan could’ve written this article from anywhere and taken zoom calls with those she got her supposed “research” from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

The movie was filmed in New Jersey. Some promotion was probably done in NY of course, but the movie was promoted globally. We don’t really know where the article was researched and drafted, we’ll need discovery for that. This is the digital age. Meghan could’ve written this article from anywhere and taken zoom calls with those she got her supposed “research” from.

PP again. Also, since BL’s complaint and JB’s cross complaint will all be one trial, you could easily say that the alleged defamatory acts against BL took place in CA. They’re not going to apply CA law to one and NY law to the other. Imo the case for CA is stronger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

The movie was filmed in New Jersey. Some promotion was probably done in NY of course, but the movie was promoted globally. We don’t really know where the article was researched and drafted, we’ll need discovery for that. This is the digital age. Meghan could’ve written this article from anywhere and taken zoom calls with those she got her supposed “research” from.

PP again. Also, since BL’s complaint and JB’s cross complaint will all be one trial, you could easily say that the alleged defamatory acts against BL took place in CA. They’re not going to apply CA law to one and NY law to the other. Imo the case for CA is stronger.

I agree they won't apply CA law to one and NY law to the other. I think they will apply NY law to both. I think the argument for CA law is much weaker than that for NY law. But we'll see. The judge will be deciding this fairly soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

The movie was filmed in New Jersey. Some promotion was probably done in NY of course, but the movie was promoted globally. We don’t really know where the article was researched and drafted, we’ll need discovery for that. This is the digital age. Meghan could’ve written this article from anywhere and taken zoom calls with those she got her supposed “research” from.

The argument "she could have written it anywhere" is not persuasive. She's a resident of NYC. Also, she's not the only journalist who worked on it -- there are multiple bylines on the article, plus the piece was edited and approved by editors at the NYT. The fact checkers who worked on it are located in their NYT headquarters in Manhattan. It's not realistic to argue that the article was not written and published in NY -- even if one of the journalists might have gone on vacation at some point and worked on it for some time in another state or country, the "most significant contacts" are obviously NY.

I also am pretty sure the NYT addresses this in their MTD and notes that the article was written, edited, and published in NY. They aren't going to lie about that in a court document.

[Anonymous]

This must have come up before. NYT will claim almost all its articles emanate from NY. They publish about people who live and work in other states all the time. Surely many of those people have claimed NYT defamed them, including California people who wanted to claim false light. So what was the outcome? It should be straightforward what the previous cases say. I tend to believe the NYT's attorneys wouldn't waste time on this argument if the precedents tended to use the laws where the plaintiffs resided (they have other defenses, including that the false light claim is duplicative of the defamation, and the pleadings don't meet the criteria for civil extortion even under CA law).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

The movie was filmed in New Jersey. Some promotion was probably done in NY of course, but the movie was promoted globally. We don’t really know where the article was researched and drafted, we’ll need discovery for that. This is the digital age. Meghan could’ve written this article from anywhere and taken zoom calls with those she got her supposed “research” from.

The argument "she could have written it anywhere" is not persuasive. She's a resident of NYC. Also, she's not the only journalist who worked on it -- there are multiple bylines on the article, plus the piece was edited and approved by editors at the NYT. The fact checkers who worked on it are located in their NYT headquarters in Manhattan. It's not realistic to argue that the article was not written and published in NY -- even if one of the journalists might have gone on vacation at some point and worked on it for some time in another state or country, the "most significant contacts" are obviously NY.

I also am pretty sure the NYT addresses this in their MTD and notes that the article was written, edited, and published in NY. They aren't going to lie about that in a court document.

I guess we’ll see. BL and NYT are trying to have their cake and eat it too. It was a strategic/calculated move to file the CRD in CA to get the fair reporting privilege and file the lawsuit in NY to gain standing. Abel is based in CA, that’s where they got the texts and that’s where Lively’s own CRD claims the acts occurred. I’m not sure the fact that NYT’s being based in NYC is enough to override CA’s overwhelming interest in the case.

[Anonymous]

I had thought Freedman's opposition brief to the Sloane motion was overly long and wondered whether they had received permission to go over. They had not. Freedman just filed a 43 page brief -- 2x as long as it was supposed to be -- with no warning or consent. What's up with that? Why can't Freedman stop taking twice as many words to say what's required, filing overly long complaints that don't meet pleading requirements, filing extraneous Statements of Alternative Facts that don't meet the pleading requirements. His legal arguments have been sloppy at best so far. I don't think he is coming off well.

On the Sloane MTD, I think much though maybe not all of it will be granted. Regardless of what law applies, I think that the complaint will be dismissed as a whole for group pleading (though Freedman will be allowed to amend some at least); I think the civil extortion claim will be dismissed; the defamation and false light claims will be dismissed against everyone except maybe Baldoni and even may be dismissed as to him - that's the main claim up in the air for me. I think the court will strike Exhibit A. Sloane will not get attorneys fees.

While courts liberally grant leave to amend complaints, I think it's possible that the civil extortion complaint against Sloane and the defamation/false light complaint against Sloane as to every defendant except Baldoni may even be dismissed with prejudice, i.e., without leave to amend. Courts generally will not grant leave to amend where it is basically clear that the amended complaint will fail for the same reasons as the prior one, and here it appears Sloane's statements were limited to Baldoni only. I think he will be allowed to amend his defamation/false light claim as to Baldoni (though Freedman has run some risk by asking permission to amend without actually attaching an amended complaint).

[Anonymous]

Also, just noting that reading Freedman's briefs can often feel like a slog; parts of them are often petulant in a PR way that is not usually helpful in a legal brief and that can sometimes misfire with a judge (many judges will not like it -- it just makes real communication and compromise more difficult -- though most judges will not overtly punish a lawyer for this language). I have said this once here before, but attorneys who file briefs like this are real jerks to work with from my (limited) experience with such people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, just noting that reading Freedman's briefs can often feel like a slog; parts of them are often petulant in a PR way that is not usually helpful in a legal brief and that can sometimes misfire with a judge (many judges will not like it -- it just makes real communication and compromise more difficult -- though most judges will not overtly punish a lawyer for this language). I have said this once here before, but attorneys who file briefs like this are real jerks to work with from my (limited) experience with such people.

BL’s team’s briefs are similar. Often littered with insults and hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

"A pietistic bastion of the media establishment, the NYT has long presumed itself beyond accountability." What a stupid way for Freedman to open his opposition brief to the NYT's MTD. If you need time to sulk, go do that in a corner *before* you start writing. Get it out of your system and then come back ready with real legal arguments. Did his father not love him or something? I see Freedman at least limited his MTD opposition to 25 pgs plus a signature page -- good, because NYT would not have let you get away with the 43 pages filed on Sloane.

I wonder if Freedman is part of some larger movement as noted in that other article linked here yesterday. Candace Owens is going to be doing a study on how Harvey Weinstein was actually innocent? And so presumably really going after the NYT reporters who initially broke that story, which include Twohey. (sp? sorry) And in generally maybe conservatives really want to break the Sullivan standard to make it easier for conservatives to go after remaining mainline media empires, and easier to muddy the facts through social media so that authoritarianism can take over. When nobody understands what the real fact are, nobody understands the real dangers, and we get things like Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, just noting that reading Freedman's briefs can often feel like a slog; parts of them are often petulant in a PR way that is not usually helpful in a legal brief and that can sometimes misfire with a judge (many judges will not like it -- it just makes real communication and compromise more difficult -- though most judges will not overtly punish a lawyer for this language). I have said this once here before, but attorneys who file briefs like this are real jerks to work with from my (limited) experience with such people.

BL’s team’s briefs are similar. Often littered with insults and hyperbole.

While I might agree that some of Lively's letter motions have had *some* bombastic language (I haven't gone back to look but I expect it's there), I do not agree that their official court filings -- their complaint, amended complaint, and any non-letter motions, oppositions, or replies have included this sort of language. I just went back to check their amended complaint and while it certainly has a point of view, and explains why (it argues) Baldoni's behavior was wrong and even hypocritical, the language it uses to do so is matter of fact and not florid. That's the kind of professionalism I expect from a brief. When we edge into Freedman's shoot-your-mouth off language, it's a signal that you're dealing with a loose cannon who can't always control themselves, imho.

[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.

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)

I don't think she’ll get attorneys fees but I do think the case will be dismissed in large part as against her.

Probably, maybe. But she probably spent 100k on that motion.

[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.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

Forum and COL are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A pietistic bastion of the media establishment, the NYT has long presumed itself beyond accountability." What a stupid way for Freedman to open his opposition brief to the NYT's MTD. If you need time to sulk, go do that in a corner *before* you start writing. Get it out of your system and then come back ready with real legal arguments. Did his father not love him or something? I see Freedman at least limited his MTD opposition to 25 pgs plus a signature page -- good, because NYT would not have let you get away with the 43 pages filed on Sloane.

I wonder if Freedman is part of some larger movement as noted in that other article linked here yesterday. Candace Owens is going to be doing a study on how Harvey Weinstein was actually innocent? And so presumably really going after the NYT reporters who initially broke that story, which include Twohey. (sp? sorry) And in generally maybe conservatives really want to break the Sullivan standard to make it easier for conservatives to go after remaining mainline media empires, and easier to muddy the facts through social media so that authoritarianism can take over. When nobody understands what the real fact are, nobody understands the real dangers, and we get things like Trump.

I think there’s clearly a concerted effort by the reynolds parties to make this case seem political to distract from BL’s lack of evidence and guilt or shame people into standing behind her despite that. It’s pretty despicable and will backfire on the entire metoo movement. I don’t think Blake is the person the metoo movement should be hitching their wagon too. Is the metoo movement so desperate to maintain legitimacy that it doesn’t matter who gets hurt. Even if you believe everything in BL’s complaint, JB is hardly Harvey Weinstein.