Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

DP. I don’t recall anyone insisting the NYT would settle because publications like them typically can’t settle cases like this is a matter of internal policy. That’s what makes the case against them interesting because they clearly messed up journalistically, and a correction/retraction of some sort was probably due, but instead they somewhat double downed on that podcast. I appreciate that I’m somewhat alone in this view, but I don’t think the case against them will be completely dismissed, or if it is, I think they could easily be reversed on appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

DP. Touch grass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

DP. Touch grass.

Uh you’re not a DP and one of your MANY annoying qualities is that you recycle other people’s responses as your own

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

DP. Touch grass.

Uh you’re not a DP and one of your MANY annoying qualities is that you recycle other people’s responses as your own

Different DP. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

That was the first thing I'd posted in maybe 100 pages. Feel free to confirm with Jeff. Given that it was two sentences long, the long-winded thing is a bit of a stretch. Also, I am most definitely a lawyer with some experience in this area; I am not a media lawyer or defamation expert and nor have I ever remotely claimed to be (in fact, I've never even claimed to be a lawyer, although I am one).

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer's motion for an extension to file an amended complaint was denied. Judge said T"he Wayfarer Parties have now been aware of what the opposing parties contend are flaws in their operative complaint for several weeks, and the deadline to move to amend is not until April 18, 2025."

[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.

Just reposting this comment which made fun of me and yet turned out to be completely wrong. Huh. I guess there really is a reason to oppose something like this, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reposting this comment which agreed with the above. Guess Freedman isn't so infallible right now. Guess he's not really reading the room. "Lively's lawyers aren't doing themselves any favors with the judge." lollol. What was that about them being focused on settling before trial again? wrong wrong wrong all the way down.

[Anonymous]

I just really enjoy that the "litigator" here has been so swift to make fun of me at every turn and yet has been so very wrong about the PO and now about this. Oh great litigator, you may bill more than me but my counsel is better lol.

Judge went even harder than I thought! I thought he would split the baby and he went all out in enforcing the original deadlines.

[Anonymous]

DP but also thought the judge was being strict here and wondering if this portends the judge will dismiss some claims without leave to amend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just really enjoy that the "litigator" here has been so swift to make fun of me at every turn and yet has been so very wrong about the PO and now about this. Oh great litigator, you may bill more than me but my counsel is better lol.

Judge went even harder than I thought! I thought he would split the baby and he went all out in enforcing the original deadlines.

There are many of us who are real lawyers who mock you. Typical that you think it’s one person. Most of us, unlike you, have lives so don’t live on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but also thought the judge was being strict here and wondering if this portends the judge will dismiss some claims without leave to amend.

Didn’t give Lively an unopposed request for extension so seems he wants to move things along. That’s usually the sign of a judge that wants a settlement,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really enjoy that the "litigator" here has been so swift to make fun of me at every turn and yet has been so very wrong about the PO and now about this. Oh great litigator, you may bill more than me but my counsel is better lol.

Judge went even harder than I thought! I thought he would split the baby and he went all out in enforcing the original deadlines.

There are many of us who are real lawyers who mock you. Typical that you think it’s one person. Most of us, unlike you, have lives so don’t live on this thread.

I mean for as much as the pro Lively pp posts, there's always a pro Baldoni post making fun of her a few minutes later, so j wouldn't cast stones here.