Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I see this letter people reference above. Technically, it's not Freedman, it's someone else from the lawyer team. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.168.0.pdf

They've asked for more time to respond to the doc requests, yes, and also an extension of time to move to amend their pleadings so that it's based off the court's forthcoming MTD rulings - 21 days later. Lively parties don't want to agree to this because the schedule wasn't originally set up to base leave to amend off MTD rulings, so why should they be allowing Baldoni all this extra time to fix his stupid complaint that he's put no effort into so far when he could be working on that right now? (lol - haven't they already given him that roadmap? so what's his problem?) Fritz (the Baldoni lawyer) also faults the Lively parties etc for not giving a reason to allow the extension besides noting that the original schedule is not targeted off MTD rulings, and cites to an ethical rule requiring courtesy and cooperation at all times, so I can see why Freedman couldn't put his name on this letter.

Interested in seeing whatever the Lively attorneys will say in response. Noting that Fritz said the NYT would agree to the extension of time for filing amendments but specifically lodged that they would oppose any amendment anyway (as will any party, really).

The total number of doc requests, 1600, does seem like a lot when aggregated. But if you consider that it is split between 8 different parties it comes out to 200 RFPs per party, and that's not crazy. Each party does not need to be represented by the same law firm, so if this is too much for Freedman et al to handle they could be getting additional help. Seems like Sarowitz can afford it and it's not like these requests are a surprise to them, since Fritz said they were all served at the same time.

My guess is that Liman will give Fritz a short extension on the doc production deadline but not quite as long as he wants. I think Liman may grant the amendment deadline based off his MTD orders, but I'm not sure. It annoys me that Freedman vaingloriously boasted about how the Lively parties had already given him a roadmap re what he'd have to do to fix his complaint, and yet he makes no effort to do anything with that information and now sits here pleading with the judge for more time. I know, I know, parties are liberally granted leave to amend etc. But much of his complaint is garbage and yet he is sitting on his hands, so I hope Liman splits the baby here, too, somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see this letter people reference above. Technically, it's not Freedman, it's someone else from the lawyer team. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.168.0.pdf

They've asked for more time to respond to the doc requests, yes, and also an extension of time to move to amend their pleadings so that it's based off the court's forthcoming MTD rulings - 21 days later. Lively parties don't want to agree to this because the schedule wasn't originally set up to base leave to amend off MTD rulings, so why should they be allowing Baldoni all this extra time to fix his stupid complaint that he's put no effort into so far when he could be working on that right now? (lol - haven't they already given him that roadmap? so what's his problem?) Fritz (the Baldoni lawyer) also faults the Lively parties etc for not giving a reason to allow the extension besides noting that the original schedule is not targeted off MTD rulings, and cites to an ethical rule requiring courtesy and cooperation at all times, so I can see why Freedman couldn't put his name on this letter.

Interested in seeing whatever the Lively attorneys will say in response. Noting that Fritz said the NYT would agree to the extension of time for filing amendments but specifically lodged that they would oppose any amendment anyway (as will any party, really).

The total number of doc requests, 1600, does seem like a lot when aggregated. But if you consider that it is split between 8 different parties it comes out to 200 RFPs per party, and that's not crazy. Each party does not need to be represented by the same law firm, so if this is too much for Freedman et al to handle they could be getting additional help. Seems like Sarowitz can afford it and it's not like these requests are a surprise to them, since Fritz said they were all served at the same time.

My guess is that Liman will give Fritz a short extension on the doc production deadline but not quite as long as he wants. I think Liman may grant the amendment deadline based off his MTD orders, but I'm not sure. It annoys me that Freedman vaingloriously boasted about how the Lively parties had already given him a roadmap re what he'd have to do to fix his complaint, and yet he makes no effort to do anything with that information and now sits here pleading with the judge for more time. I know, I know, parties are liberally granted leave to amend etc. But much of his complaint is garbage and yet he is sitting on his hands, so I hope Liman splits the baby here, too, somehow.

Your argument is silly. The judge will give them more time for both. This is basic stuff. Lively’s attorneys are being a-holes just to be a-holes, there’s really no reason to oppose something like this. Of course Baldoni’s team wants to wait for the judge’s ruling to do any amendments. It doesn’t make sense otherwise. And since Lively’s team requested 5 times as many interrogatories as baldoni’s, of course they’ll need more time. Lively’s lawyers aren’t doing themselves any favors with the judge. The only thing I can think is they’re not concerned about generating goodwill because they know their MTDs won’t be granted and they’re planning to settle before trial. You see the nyt, which has a better case for dismissal, is behaving much more in accordance with the rules of decorum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this letter people reference above. Technically, it's not Freedman, it's someone else from the lawyer team. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.168.0.pdf

They've asked for more time to respond to the doc requests, yes, and also an extension of time to move to amend their pleadings so that it's based off the court's forthcoming MTD rulings - 21 days later. Lively parties don't want to agree to this because the schedule wasn't originally set up to base leave to amend off MTD rulings, so why should they be allowing Baldoni all this extra time to fix his stupid complaint that he's put no effort into so far when he could be working on that right now? (lol - haven't they already given him that roadmap? so what's his problem?) Fritz (the Baldoni lawyer) also faults the Lively parties etc for not giving a reason to allow the extension besides noting that the original schedule is not targeted off MTD rulings, and cites to an ethical rule requiring courtesy and cooperation at all times, so I can see why Freedman couldn't put his name on this letter.

Interested in seeing whatever the Lively attorneys will say in response. Noting that Fritz said the NYT would agree to the extension of time for filing amendments but specifically lodged that they would oppose any amendment anyway (as will any party, really).

The total number of doc requests, 1600, does seem like a lot when aggregated. But if you consider that it is split between 8 different parties it comes out to 200 RFPs per party, and that's not crazy. Each party does not need to be represented by the same law firm, so if this is too much for Freedman et al to handle they could be getting additional help. Seems like Sarowitz can afford it and it's not like these requests are a surprise to them, since Fritz said they were all served at the same time.

My guess is that Liman will give Fritz a short extension on the doc production deadline but not quite as long as he wants. I think Liman may grant the amendment deadline based off his MTD orders, but I'm not sure. It annoys me that Freedman vaingloriously boasted about how the Lively parties had already given him a roadmap re what he'd have to do to fix his complaint, and yet he makes no effort to do anything with that information and now sits here pleading with the judge for more time. I know, I know, parties are liberally granted leave to amend etc. But much of his complaint is garbage and yet he is sitting on his hands, so I hope Liman splits the baby here, too, somehow.

Your argument is silly. The judge will give them more time for both. This is basic stuff. Lively’s attorneys are being a-holes just to be a-holes, there’s really no reason to oppose something like this. Of course Baldoni’s team wants to wait for the judge’s ruling to do any amendments. It doesn’t make sense otherwise. And since Lively’s team requested 5 times as many interrogatories as baldoni’s, of course they’ll need more time. Lively’s lawyers aren’t doing themselves any favors with the judge. The only thing I can think is they’re not concerned about generating goodwill because they know their MTDs won’t be granted and they’re planning to settle before trial. You see the nyt, which has a better case for dismissal, is behaving much more in accordance with the rules of decorum.

This, and the personal antagonism towards Freedman is beyond bizarre. This is how litigation goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman actually made a statement that he wasn't filing any MTDs because he didn't want to give the Lively Parties a roadmap of the arguments needed to amend their complaint. While I think the main reason is that he doesn't have good grounds to dismiss (because Lively's case hinges on factual determinations, not because I think she's right), that tracked with me because it feels he's projecting what he's doing. The FAC is a mess and his responses generally boiled down to "well we can just amend it/we're getting more information."

In other words, you think the Lively parties are giving Freedman a roadmap to how to amend his complaint by filing these MTDs? The thing is I do not think Freedman will be given leave to amend on some of these claims because it will be considered futile. He should lose a bunch of these.

Pretty much. The various MTDs are laying out the elements that haven't been met and other deficiencies and inconsistencies. For example in this Reynolds response, he notes the defamatory call from Reynolds to Greenberg wasn't even in the complaint at all but the timeline, so now Freedman can just edit it into the second amended complaint, if granted leave, and incorporate all the arguments made about actual malice, damages, etc. I guess Freedman believes this is a brilliant strategy. I'm not so sure.

I think a lot will get dismissed (bearing in mind Wayfarer is generally claiming every Wayfarer party against every Lively party, even in cases where there's zero connection, eg, there's no allegation Reynolds defamed the PR reps). The only one I think has a chance to get dismissed totally is NYT. I think the Sloane/Vision PR "sexual assault" claim and the Reynolds "sexual predator"/interference with a contract claims will survive, and many of the claims against Lively, but everything should be narrowed down a lot. I am curious if the judge will buy into the theory that it was all a conspiracy so Wayfarer can claim against all Lively parties, and how he'll rule on extortion (I lean towards dismissing all the extortion claims entirely).

Agree, almost nothing will be dismissed, with the exception of the NY Times. The MTF standard favors plaintiffs to the extreme and leave to replead is freely given. Not many of the folks repeatedly giving their legal opinion are actually litigators and it shows.

DP, but even though you are saying "Agree" above you are not at all agreeing with what PP is saying. PP said (and I agree) that while almost nothing will get dismissed in full EXCEPT maybe the NYT claims, that a significant amount of other detritus will be dismissed from Freedman's complaint because, for example, he hasn't pled that Reynolds' alleged defamation of Baldoni in any defamed the PR reps. Those claims, as Gottlieb pointed out in the reply, may rightfully dismissed with prejudice given the futility of allowing Freedman to amend them at this stage of the game and Liman isn't going to want to perform this entire exercise anew on any new complaint that Freedman does pull out of his a$$ in two months. There may be some claims that Liman gives Freeman a shot at amending, but the Motions to Dismiss identify a lot of weak sauce Freedman added to his $400M pot of hopes and dreams. And even if he does allow repleading of certain claims, it's not really clear that Freedman would actually be able to allege what's needed to keep the claim alive.

I am not familiar with the MTF standard, is that something only litigators know lol - is it the standard applied in a Motion to Eff with the judge?

This is the first motion to dismiss, he’ll be liberal in allowing them to replead. You seem to write a lot without actually having any litigation experience. And are weirdly emotionally invested in the case. The judge will not be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a video of an influencer who had been tracking Isabella, the actress who played Young Lily‘s Instagram. She had taken a bunch of pictures. Isabella had three carousels on her Instagram with a bunch of pictures of her and Blake during the weeks they launched the film. All those have been wiped out. Looks like she is trying to distance herself.

Commentary like this is funny to me because the truth is none of us knows how any of these other parties -- Isabella, Brandon Sklenar, Jenny Slate, Colleen Hoover, the Sony execs, Taylor Swift -- actually feel about any of this. And all of the people I just mentioned, except the Sony execs, has publicists and a public reputation they have to protect, many have the other projects they are now promoting or may be up for other roles, and would have a very good reason to want to distance themselves from this whole mess that may have nothing at all to do with their personal feelings on any of it.

Also, all of those people are potential witnesses who may be called to testify, which means probably all or most of them have consulted a lawyer about all this. And one of the first things a lawyer is going to tell you in a situation like this is to make no public statements on the matter. Just "no comment" or change the subject. Taking down social media posts related to the subject of your possible testimony could be part of that. Just total disengagement on the subject publicly.

It's entirely possible Isabella could have soured on Blake and might wish Blake would just settle and drop it so that Isabella could stop being associated with it. It's also possible Isabella supports Blake and is ready to testify, but has been advised by her agent, publicist, and lawyer to distance herself publicly from IEWU and Blake (and Baldoni for that matter) to try and turn the page in her career to other things.

I just think trying to read the tea leaves based on stuff like who follows who on Instagram, which photos with with people they are leaving up or taking down, their social media going private or public, etc., is futile. We don't know! We will not know what any of these people actually think of this matter unless/until we see depositions or testimony. At some point it may become worthwhile for some of them to make public statements, but right now if they were to come out in support of Blake, they really do risk a defamation suit from Baldoni/Wayfarer. It's possible his lawyers have already threatened one. Better to lay low, see how these early stages of litigation go, see if it just settles and goes away, and then decide in collaboration with professional advice whether or what to say publicly on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Just to get you guys on the record, you think Judge Liman will not be dismissing any of Freedman's claims with prejudice, but will basically allow him to replead every single claim he has made in his FAC against all of the parties? Except maybe he will possibly grant the NYT MTD. That seems to be what you are saying, but I'm not sure I've got you right.

[Anonymous]

I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

[Anonymous]

It’s weird to me that Team Balboner is so surprised by anti-Freedman comments here given some of the ridiculously uncivil and frankly vile remarks Bryan Freedman has made to the press, and the absolutely uncivil tone posters here regularly take about Lively and Reynolds which you curiously don’t seem to have a problem with and in fact participate in. The idea that Bryan Freedman is exempt from scorn because he’s a lawyer like “us” essentially ignores and gives him a pass for the particular brand of lawyer he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Totally agree. I don't even think winning this case would save them. They're over. They miscalculated and have lost the public they need to be cared about at all. They went from sort of innocuous seeming of a little annoying to terrible people reputation wise and I don't see that changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

DP, but you are CLEARLY the same pro-Balboner bot who spams at least one long paragraph of insults and “settle now!” weirdness every 10 comments that nobody takes seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

Exactly zero studio execs would refer to Blake and Ryan as "ten a penny" in Hollywood -- they are worth a ton of money, not just to themselves but also to studios. Ryan in particular. TBH, neither of them make the kind of movies or TV I actually want to watch. I've never seen any Deadpool movies, never saw IEWU. I watched A Simple Favor and it was okay for something to watch while doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen.

But even I can see that they are incredibly marketable and make a lot of people (including Wayfarer) a ton of money. Obviously a lot of media consumers like them well enough to spend a lot more money on their movies.

These insults about Blake and Ryan being stupid and old and uneducated and having ruined their careers all sound like when Donald Trump is mad that someone very popular doesn't like him so he calls them losers even when they objectively are not. It just comes off as very petty wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Totally agree. I don't even think winning this case would save them. They're over. They miscalculated and have lost the public they need to be cared about at all. They went from sort of innocuous seeming of a little annoying to terrible people reputation wise and I don't see that changing.

You both seem to be “weirdly invested in this case,” fwiw. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

Exactly zero studio execs would refer to Blake and Ryan as "ten a penny" in Hollywood -- they are worth a ton of money, not just to themselves but also to studios. Ryan in particular. TBH, neither of them make the kind of movies or TV I actually want to watch. I've never seen any Deadpool movies, never saw IEWU. I watched A Simple Favor and it was okay for something to watch while doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen.

But even I can see that they are incredibly marketable and make a lot of people (including Wayfarer) a ton of money. Obviously a lot of media consumers like them well enough to spend a lot more money on their movies.

These insults about Blake and Ryan being stupid and old and uneducated and having ruined their careers all sound like when Donald Trump is mad that someone very popular doesn't like him so he calls them losers even when they objectively are not. It just comes off as very petty wishful thinking.

Yes! I honestly don’t understand why they start spamming the thread with this stuff every page. It’s like they believe that if they say it, it will come true. And it’s so regular — like twice every page almost! Also the constant imperatives to Lively and Reynolds to settle, as though they believe that they are reading this thread lol. It’s just kind of bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

Exactly zero studio execs would refer to Blake and Ryan as "ten a penny" in Hollywood -- they are worth a ton of money, not just to themselves but also to studios. Ryan in particular. TBH, neither of them make the kind of movies or TV I actually want to watch. I've never seen any Deadpool movies, never saw IEWU. I watched A Simple Favor and it was okay for something to watch while doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen.

But even I can see that they are incredibly marketable and make a lot of people (including Wayfarer) a ton of money. Obviously a lot of media consumers like them well enough to spend a lot more money on their movies.

These insults about Blake and Ryan being stupid and old and uneducated and having ruined their careers all sound like when Donald Trump is mad that someone very popular doesn't like him so he calls them losers even when they objectively are not. It just comes off as very petty wishful thinking.

Yes! I honestly don’t understand why they start spamming the thread with this stuff every page. It’s like they believe that if they say it, it will come true. And it’s so regular — like twice every page almost! Also the constant imperatives to Lively and Reynolds to settle, as though they believe that they are reading this thread lol. It’s just kind of bizarre.

It’s weird that you think they won’t settle. Blake is getting hammered everywhere she goes and she’s become repellent to her own friends who want to distance themselves from this drama. The problem imo is actually that Lively might have a hard time agreeing to terms Baldoni is willing to accept.

I believe that nothing in Blake’s case rises to the level of harassment, and certainly not to the level of “sexual predator”, which is defamatory per se. Ryan Reynolds in particular is going to have a really hard time getting out of this just based on his behavior and the facts of the case.

Blake had a right to feel how she felt, but once wayfarer addressed her concerns, that should’ve been the end of it. The problem is she continued to escalate. Even if there was a smear campaign - and if you believe Wallace’s sworn declaration, there likely wasn’t one - she’s going to have to prove that the smear campaign was retaliation for harassment and not just a defensive move in response to her cutting him out of promos and fueling rumors about him in the press. Blake has a few privileges that may help her avoid liability for her defamation, but it’s not going to be easy, and if she wins in court based on what the public sees as unfair privilege or a technicality, she’ll still lose in the court of public opinion. She has every reason to settle at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

...

How much are you bleeding from Ryan and Blake for this moronic astroturfing? Imagine the pitch for this crap: "For 1.75 million USD we have this genius idea to spam every forum and social media with r**** wing buzzwords to wed casual observers who simply don't believe Blake with far-r**** political trolls! We will gaslight the public this is a far-r**** conspiracy to take down a middle aged actress!" lol The average T**** voter doesn't have the faintest clue who in the hell Blake Lively is. And I assume most of the dorks who saw Ryan Reynold's corny super hero movies are dweebs on reddit.

Whatever the case, Blake and Ryan's Q Scores are permanently in the toilet and they're both old in Hollywood terms. Their star power was fading no matter what, which is why they've been desperately trying to pivot to bigger things they're both lack the intellect and experience to warrant.