Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh puhlease, they opened their complaint with a 2017 ted talk Baldoni gave, but you take offense to BF’s big words?!!!

[Anonymous]

A thought on the group pleading. Sloane and the NYT’s both say it’s inappropriate, and the lowest hanging fruit they latch onto is the extortion claim. They’re both like, how were we parties to extortion, that’s obviously wrong. However, one could argue (and BF probably will) that the extortion is ongoing (and not just something that happened during the takeover of the first film). Wayfarer owns the rights to the second movie. RR tried to buy the rights but couldn’t, so now they collude with their publicists and the media to defame JB and make it impossible for him to make the second movie. All of a sudden, selling the rights to them or back to CH seems like the best option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A thought on the group pleading. Sloane and the NYT’s both say it’s inappropriate, and the lowest hanging fruit they latch onto is the extortion claim. They’re both like, how were we parties to extortion, that’s obviously wrong. However, one could argue (and BF probably will) that the extortion is ongoing (and not just something that happened during the takeover of the first film). Wayfarer owns the rights to the second movie. RR tried to buy the rights but couldn’t, so now they collude with their publicists and the media to defame JB and make it impossible for him to make the second movie. All of a sudden, selling the rights to them or back to CH seems like the best option.

Extortion involves making threats or overt acts. If JB simply fears they will make up lies because they lied before, that's just defamation for the prior lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A thought on the group pleading. Sloane and the NYT’s both say it’s inappropriate, and the lowest hanging fruit they latch onto is the extortion claim. They’re both like, how were we parties to extortion, that’s obviously wrong. However, one could argue (and BF probably will) that the extortion is ongoing (and not just something that happened during the takeover of the first film). Wayfarer owns the rights to the second movie. RR tried to buy the rights but couldn’t, so now they collude with their publicists and the media to defame JB and make it impossible for him to make the second movie. All of a sudden, selling the rights to them or back to CH seems like the best option.

Extortion involves making threats or overt acts. If JB simply fears they will make up lies because they lied before, that's just defamation for the prior lies.

They threatened to take the “gloves off” if wayfarer didn’t release that press statement saying BL’s bad press was their fault. When wayfarer refused, BL worked with the nyt to release a hit piece. That seems like a threat that they then followed through on with the help of the nyt. I’m saying that if one of their goals was also to get the rights to the second movie, you could argue the nyt piece was part of that and not just that she extorted JB with the 17 point list to get control of movie 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A thought on the group pleading. Sloane and the NYT’s both say it’s inappropriate, and the lowest hanging fruit they latch onto is the extortion claim. They’re both like, how were we parties to extortion, that’s obviously wrong. However, one could argue (and BF probably will) that the extortion is ongoing (and not just something that happened during the takeover of the first film). Wayfarer owns the rights to the second movie. RR tried to buy the rights but couldn’t, so now they collude with their publicists and the media to defame JB and make it impossible for him to make the second movie. All of a sudden, selling the rights to them or back to CH seems like the best option.

If he was going to argue this, the opportunity for that would have been in either his 43 page opposition brief for Sloane or his 25 page opposition brief for the NYT. He did not do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh puhlease, they opened their complaint with a 2017 ted talk Baldoni gave, but you take offense to BF’s big words?!!!

Oh, COME ON. Climb off the Baldoni bandwagon for just a second and try, just try for five seconds, to be slightly objective. These are Justin Bandoni's own words! This isn't overwrought, bombastic language of an attorney to insult the other side. It's just Baldoni's very own words used against him -- that is actually a very normal thing to see in legal briefs if you are familiar with them lol. And I have certainly been involved in cases where we cite to a parties' or witnesses' statements made in other contexts (either in factual or expert testimony) to show conflicting statements and thus heighten the fact that a person has said one thing in one context but quite another in a different context, which shows off the lie and/or hypocrisy.

[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.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

[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.

Dp. Publications like the NYT are frequently sued where the P resides outside (and under different laws) of their home base in NY, and it is presumed that they have sufficient nexus to that location because of their choice to do business and publish there, and the injury to the P occurring there. Where the article was researched and written isn’t typically a very compelling factor in the analysis.

CA forum and law would be a given here, but for the fact that as I understand it, Baldonis side voluntarily moved this case to NY. Or am I mistaken?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A thought on the group pleading. Sloane and the NYT’s both say it’s inappropriate, and the lowest hanging fruit they latch onto is the extortion claim. They’re both like, how were we parties to extortion, that’s obviously wrong. However, one could argue (and BF probably will) that the extortion is ongoing (and not just something that happened during the takeover of the first film). Wayfarer owns the rights to the second movie. RR tried to buy the rights but couldn’t, so now they collude with their publicists and the media to defame JB and make it impossible for him to make the second movie. All of a sudden, selling the rights to them or back to CH seems like the best option.

Extortion involves making threats or overt acts. If JB simply fears they will make up lies because they lied before, that's just defamation for the prior lies.

They threatened to take the “gloves off” if wayfarer didn’t release that press statement saying BL’s bad press was their fault. When wayfarer refused, BL worked with the nyt to release a hit piece. That seems like a threat that they then followed through on with the help of the nyt. I’m saying that if one of their goals was also to get the rights to the second movie, you could argue the nyt piece was part of that and not just that she extorted JB with the 17 point list to get control of movie 1.

But that's not extortion. The "or else" was that Lively might go to the press to discuss Baldoni's behavior on the set. That's something Lively is entitled to do regardless of whether Baldoni signs that statement. Lively's silence is not something Baldoni owns, and it's not something she can extract from him via threats. Her choice to speak or not belongs to her.

Likewise, Lively did not control the movie. The thing she extracted with the 17 point list was not a directing credit, or even a p.g.a. credit, or the right to decide how the movie would look, be shot, to direct other actors, etc. The thing of value she got with the list was a respectful work environment. Again, that's something she's legally entitled to regardless of whether they sign that document. It's not something it's possible to "extort" from someone. That's like if one of my kids is hitting the other and I say "if you keep hitting, you don't get to go on your playdate." That's not extortion. It's just informing my kid that the consequence of continuing to misbehave and hurt others will be that I will exercise my existing right to prevent them from so my something they want, but are not entitled, to do.

[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.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

It's common in federal diversity cases which, by definition, involve parties located in different states arguing over which state's law applies. PP is right that that it would be surprising, especially given the number of major publications located in SDNY, if there is not clear precedent addressing the issue of whether NY or the law of the state where the plaintiff resides governs in a case like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh puhlease, they opened their complaint with a 2017 ted talk Baldoni gave, but you take offense to BF’s big words?!!!

Oh, COME ON. Climb off the Baldoni bandwagon for just a second and try, just try for five seconds, to be slightly objective. These are Justin Bandoni's own words! This isn't overwrought, bombastic language of an attorney to insult the other side. It's just Baldoni's very own words used against him -- that is actually a very normal thing to see in legal briefs if you are familiar with them lol. And I have certainly been involved in cases where we cite to a parties' or witnesses' statements made in other contexts (either in factual or expert testimony) to show conflicting statements and thus heighten the fact that a person has said one thing in one context but quite another in a different context, which shows off the lie and/or hypocrisy.

I’m a litigator with 20 years experience, and no, it isn’t normal to use a quote from an unrelated event in a Complaint, but you know that.

[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.

Dp. Publications like the NYT are frequently sued where the P resides outside (and under different laws) of their home base in NY, and it is presumed that they have sufficient nexus to that location because of their choice to do business and publish there, and the injury to the P occurring there. Where the article was researched and written isn’t typically a very compelling factor in the analysis.

CA forum and law would be a given here, but for the fact that as I understand it, Baldonis side voluntarily moved this case to NY. Or am I mistaken?

I don’t find that argument compelling. Blake had already filed in NY and the actions needed to be joined. If Justin had been first to file, would be a good point.

[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.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

This is definitely wrong. Forum and choice of law are not the same thing at all

[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.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

It's common in federal diversity cases which, by definition, involve parties located in different states arguing over which state's law applies. PP is right that that it would be surprising, especially given the number of major publications located in SDNY, if there is not clear precedent addressing the issue of whether NY or the law of the state where the plaintiff resides governs in a case like this.

PP
You’re thinking about different types of federal diversity cases. In press cases where the publication does business (ie publishes physically and online) in that jurisdiction where P resides, was harmed and files, the COL usually goes hand in hand with forum.

[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.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

Not true. This is federal court. They can apply any state’s law and do everyday.