Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

NYT has a better case for the stay because they just might be getting dismissed from the case completely (Sloane wanted that too, and the order denying the stay may be a signal that's not happening). Blake and Ryan are going to be parties to the case anyway (certain claims against certain parties may be dismissed) so they are eventually going to participate in discovery as parties. I imagine that getting the AEO distinction to prevent leaks of their personal info is more valuable to them than staying the inevitable discovery requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

[Anonymous]

lol. Never change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

It must be a really bad day for team lively if you’re still stuck on the AEO. So much has happened since then that’s much more interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

Np. You’re so strange. Why do you care so much? Lawyers file motions, they make arguments. They expect to lose some. It’s really NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

Np. You’re so strange. Why do you care so much? Lawyers file motions, they make arguments. They expect to lose some. It’s really NBD.

I’m stubbornly arguing this because your team came in a page ago and said Lively’s side can’t admit when something goes badly. But two Lively-side defenders admitted Wallace’s declaration was bad for her! lol. Whereas you guys keep claiming the sky is green on the PO or anything else Freedman effs up.

It’s the total hypocrisy of that that keeps me drilling you on this point. Just admit he lost the argument with the judge and I’ll stop. It shouldn’t be hard. You can see he lost from his draft PO. I shouldn’t be surprised by the hypocrisy though because that’s totally in line with the self-proclaimed male feminist who mansplained how a “normal woman” gives birth naked to an actual woman who gave birth in a hospital gown four times.

[Anonymous]

We admitted it was bad for her twice, even! Once several pages ago yesterday when it first happened! And then again when someone else came in today and said why aren’t the Lively defenders admitting how bad this is, you can’t ever admit when something goes badly for her?! So we did it again lol. Meanwhile Freedman’s desire to be the AEO Gatekeeper Almighty, a position which he would have *loved* to rub Lively’s face in, tanked with the judge and not a single Baldoni supporter has admitted this since it happened. Amazing!

[Anonymous]

Except maybe the lawyer who examined the PO language and reported back that it was a Lively win, like 90%. Not sure what side they were on, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

NYT has a better case for the stay because they just might be getting dismissed from the case completely (Sloane wanted that too, and the order denying the stay may be a signal that's not happening). Blake and Ryan are going to be parties to the case anyway (certain claims against certain parties may be dismissed) so they are eventually going to participate in discovery as parties. I imagine that getting the AEO distinction to prevent leaks of their personal info is more valuable to them than staying the inevitable discovery requests.

They personally won’t be able to use the AEO category as defined except for medical records or future film projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except maybe the lawyer who examined the PO language and reported back that it was a Lively win, like 90%. Not sure what side they were on, sorry.

lol, redlining doesn’t mean anything, as any actual litigator would know. The category Lively cared about was the last one,
,and the judge didn’t use her language. The only parties who will actually be able to use AEO are the pr firms, Blake can’t use it on any relevant documents, which is the universe of what’s discoverable anyway.

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

False, the big issue that Lively cared about was protecting her personal info and the definition requires her to provide a
all such relevant info without an AEO designation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

NYT has a better case for the stay because they just might be getting dismissed from the case completely (Sloane wanted that too, and the order denying the stay may be a signal that's not happening). Blake and Ryan are going to be parties to the case anyway (certain claims against certain parties may be dismissed) so they are eventually going to participate in discovery as parties. I imagine that getting the AEO distinction to prevent leaks of their personal info is more valuable to them than staying the inevitable discovery requests.

They personally won’t be able to use the AEO category as defined except for medical records or future film projects.

That’s flat out wrong. If Twohey has a very personal text to lively that’s not relevant to case, that can be AEO no problem. Same with Lively. And such info may be in the same page or included with other info that is responsive, so it would still be required to be produced.

You misread the PO.