Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

The subpoena is not "mysterious." This has been addressed here and elsewhere. California and other states give people the option of a pre-litigation subpoena for evidence that is at risk of being lost or destroyed and could be important to a case they are considering filing.

And the texts were 100% the property of Jonesworks. Jones may have violated her contract with Wayfarer in showing them to Leslie Sloane before the subpoena, but would not be in violation when she produced them for Lively and her lawyers in October via the subpoena.

And no, there is no penalty for "leaking" the texts to the NYT. The only "confidentiality" that would have covered the texts was via the contract between Wayfarer and Jones. It would not apply to Lively or the NYT. The texts do not contain protected communications -- no violation of HIPAA or other sensitive info.

I feel like people need to learn a lesson about how private their texts and emails are, especially anything sent or received using a work-owned device.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Just laughing at this reading of the tea leaves from Team Balboni that, of course, the judge's actions here portends a settlement! Everything that happens portends a settlement to you guys! Lively requesting more time to file an amended complaint portended a settlement! The MTDs portended a settlement! Lively et al opposing Freedman's extension requests portened a settlement! The judge denying said extension portends a settlement! And yet, there is still no settlement, aw. Maybe the judge dismissing a bunch of Baldoni's claims also will portend a settlement? I bet it will!

I really enjoyed Reynolds letter opposing the Baldoni's motion to extend time. Its reasoning and case support is great, it notes that -- inexplicably! -- Baldoni doesn't even mention the proper standard for showing good cause for an extension (which, amusingly, is based on Liman's prior case called Furry Puppet Studio -- that is fantastic!). But, specifically, the tone of the letter is great, I love it. It isn't demeaning to Baldoni (as Freedman's letters often are), but it clearly states how Freedman's past "strategic" decisions in the case (which probably were made more for the PR side than the legal side) properly lead to rejection of Baldoni's extension request here. If Freedman thought they couldn't meet their discovery deadlines, they could have agreed to Sloane's motion to stay discovery two weeks ago. Nope. Alternatively, Freedman could have preserved their opportunity to amend their complaint as of right for the first time. Nope, they didn't do that either, and instead filed their first amended complaint and its crazy appendix with no notice to either party claiming they wanted to move the case forward. And the paragraph on there being no right to have MTD rulings before you amend your complaint is *chef's kiss*:

"The premise of the Wayfarer Parties’ request—that they should be entitled to read the Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss before seeking leave to amend—is unsupported. Rule 15 permits a party to amend once as of right within 21 days of an opponent’s responsive pleading (provided the party has not already burned that chance, as the Wayfarer Parties did), and Rule 16 requires that an amendment deadline be fixed in a scheduling order entered near the outset of the case. Nothing in the rules guarantees a party the right to lose a motion to dismiss before alleging all of the facts that support their claims (much less to continue receiving discovery while they wait). Moreover, the Wayfarer Parties have already sought leave to amend in each of their oppositions to each motion to dismiss, but did not identify in any of the oppositions how they would amend their pleading to cure any defects, much less attach a proposed further amended complaint. See L.R. 15. Nor do they do so now, even as they ask the Court to grant this “exceptional” relief. At best, the “information supporting the [Wayfarer Parties’] proposed amendment . . . was available to [them] even before [they] filed suit,” defeating a request for more time to amend. Parker, 204 F.3d at 341."

The letter is great, and I love that it's full of reasonable arguments that rightly point out the mistakes that Freedman made up until this point, but keeps the tone perfectly straightforward and not petulant and insulting, as Freedman's letters often are.

That's more than I can do here, as I note that no one on Team Baldoni is admitting they were completely wrong on this motion. Just as with the PO! I almost expect that someone will try to position this as a win for Baldoni, actually. (Like, someone already is saying it means the judge wants settlement, lol!) You guys are so quick to insult the lawyers who defend Lively's legal arguments, and yet here we are again, somehow, with you having been so fantastically and completely wrong. WRONG. WRONG. Will anyone on Team Baldoni admit they were wrong here? Not holding my breath lol. Maybe we are better lawyers than you think, though. Or maybe you are less great than you think you are.

Jesus. I can’t wait for this thread to be locked at 500 pages. I’m glad you’re into it though. Did not intricately follow all that…

[Anonymous]

Back on discovery deadlines, I note that Baldoni will have 179 ROG responses due on Monday. Then, by Friday, he will need to file his proposed amended complaint that will fix all of the problems noted in the various MTDs -- that Freedman and team think are valid arguments that would otherwise kill their claims -- as well as blend anything in that they need from their weird fact appendix that also might otherwise be struck. That's quite a bit of work for them over the next seven days, those lawyers had better be ready for some grubhub and consider setting up cots in the office like Elon's Big Balls team. Hopefully, Freedman has already made a start on the amended complaint and wasn't actually relying on the whole "we are keeping our fingers crossed" requests in their MTD oppositions to file their amendment after the MTD rulings.

Honestly, it does make sense for the court to get the proposed amended complaint first because it actually should assist Judge Liman in ruling on the MTDs, and provide information re whether amendment would be futile. Right now in deciding these MTDs, the judge is really in the dark as to how Freedman might repair some of the issues with the complaint and the timeline exhibit. Judge Liman probably even tried to signal this earlier when granting the NYT's motion to stay discovery back on March 4, noting that Wayfarer could accelerate the filing of their amended complaint if they were worried about delay.

Baldoni has known at least since late February when NYT filed its MTD that they would need to file an amended complaint. (But really they must have known since late January when they filed their first amended complaint with its clearly non-compliant timeline appendix.) This is not some surprise. He should be on draft five already tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The subpoena is not "mysterious." This has been addressed here and elsewhere. California and other states give people the option of a pre-litigation subpoena for evidence that is at risk of being lost or destroyed and could be important to a case they are considering filing.

And the texts were 100% the property of Jonesworks. Jones may have violated her contract with Wayfarer in showing them to Leslie Sloane before the subpoena, but would not be in violation when she produced them for Lively and her lawyers in October via the subpoena.

And no, there is no penalty for "leaking" the texts to the NYT. The only "confidentiality" that would have covered the texts was via the contract between Wayfarer and Jones. It would not apply to Lively or the NYT. The texts do not contain protected communications -- no violation of HIPAA or other sensitive info.

I feel like people need to learn a lesson about how private their texts and emails are, especially anything sent or received using a work-owned device.

The subpoena may not be a mystery to you, but it is still a mystery as no one has seen it. If there’s nothing fishy going on, why hasn’t it been produced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so strange that you are convinced there is exactly one pro-Lively poster on this thread when there are obviously several.

The general public sees right through the lying scam artists, which is why they’re like 99% on Justin’s side. This Blake and Ryan crash out is getting sadder and sadder. Just digging a bigger hole the more they prolong this evil hoax.

Your boy failed to even cite the applicable legal standard in his request for more time. That is something first year law students understand they need to do. Bombast and theatrics might be fun for the public, but they don't decide legal arguments.

Remember when Blake’s lawyers were denied a consented-to motion for extension? Clearly this judge just doesn’t give extensions. But hey, it’s it’s the one thing in your life giving you joy, have at it.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone bring up the new reporting from IF, yet? She’s been slowly and discretely scrubbing her social media of Blake and the press reported that a source close to IF said those close to her (remember she’s a Clooney) advised her to delete the photos. The source also said Blake wanted to drag IF into the lawsuit to back up her accusations but she couldn’t do that because she didn’t see any of this alleged harassment with her own eyes. She apparently feels “shafted” by Blake.

[Anonymous]

Judge Liman is a Trump appointee. Surprised that hasnt been discussed in the past 497 pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back on discovery deadlines, I note that Baldoni will have 179 ROG responses due on Monday. Then, by Friday, he will need to file his proposed amended complaint that will fix all of the problems noted in the various MTDs -- that Freedman and team think are valid arguments that would otherwise kill their claims -- as well as blend anything in that they need from their weird fact appendix that also might otherwise be struck. That's quite a bit of work for them over the next seven days, those lawyers had better be ready for some grubhub and consider setting up cots in the office like Elon's Big Balls team. Hopefully, Freedman has already made a start on the amended complaint and wasn't actually relying on the whole "we are keeping our fingers crossed" requests in their MTD oppositions to file their amendment after the MTD rulings.

Honestly, it does make sense for the court to get the proposed amended complaint first because it actually should assist Judge Liman in ruling on the MTDs, and provide information re whether amendment would be futile. Right now in deciding these MTDs, the judge is really in the dark as to how Freedman might repair some of the issues with the complaint and the timeline exhibit. Judge Liman probably even tried to signal this earlier when granting the NYT's motion to stay discovery back on March 4, noting that Wayfarer could accelerate the filing of their amended complaint if they were worried about delay.

Baldoni has known at least since late February when NYT filed its MTD that they would need to file an amended complaint. (But really they must have known since late January when they filed their first amended complaint with its clearly non-compliant timeline appendix.) This is not some surprise. He should be on draft five already tbh.

The 18th is not the deadline to file an amended complaint. It's the deadline to *request* to file an amended complaint. The first amended complaint is free, after that you have to ask permission.

It is weird to me that Wayfarer has not requested leave to amend yet, but they did ask for an extension on the deadline to request leave to amend? I guess because of this idea they had that they could wait until MTDs are determined to request it, which is weird and I get why Liman didn't go for it.

I think Freedman/Wayfarer have backed themselves into a corner here.

[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, since it was merely yesterday that Team Baldoni was saying that of course both of Baldoni's extensions would be granted. Now of course your story has changed and -- what a shock -- you're saying that Judge Liman only grants extensions of time sparingly. He did actually grant Lively more time following their extension request than he granted Baldoni (zero days, either request) -- maybe that's because Lively managed to state the standard for good cause in their letter request, which somehow Freedman omitted even after he had the standard spoonfed to him from Lively's request.

Maybe Baldoni should not have put all of his eggs in the Freedman basket. I admit that I am very much enjoying seeing Team Baldoni attempt to hand wave this one away, just as with the PO. Freedman looks like an idiot. He didn't even state the legal standard for good cause, wut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back on discovery deadlines, I note that Baldoni will have 179 ROG responses due on Monday. Then, by Friday, he will need to file his proposed amended complaint that will fix all of the problems noted in the various MTDs -- that Freedman and team think are valid arguments that would otherwise kill their claims -- as well as blend anything in that they need from their weird fact appendix that also might otherwise be struck. That's quite a bit of work for them over the next seven days, those lawyers had better be ready for some grubhub and consider setting up cots in the office like Elon's Big Balls team. Hopefully, Freedman has already made a start on the amended complaint and wasn't actually relying on the whole "we are keeping our fingers crossed" requests in their MTD oppositions to file their amendment after the MTD rulings.

Honestly, it does make sense for the court to get the proposed amended complaint first because it actually should assist Judge Liman in ruling on the MTDs, and provide information re whether amendment would be futile. Right now in deciding these MTDs, the judge is really in the dark as to how Freedman might repair some of the issues with the complaint and the timeline exhibit. Judge Liman probably even tried to signal this earlier when granting the NYT's motion to stay discovery back on March 4, noting that Wayfarer could accelerate the filing of their amended complaint if they were worried about delay.

Baldoni has known at least since late February when NYT filed its MTD that they would need to file an amended complaint. (But really they must have known since late January when they filed their first amended complaint with its clearly non-compliant timeline appendix.) This is not some surprise. He should be on draft five already tbh.

The 18th is not the deadline to file an amended complaint. It's the deadline to *request* to file an amended complaint. The first amended complaint is free, after that you have to ask permission.

It is weird to me that Wayfarer has not requested leave to amend yet, but they did ask for an extension on the deadline to request leave to amend? I guess because of this idea they had that they could wait until MTDs are determined to request it, which is weird and I get why Liman didn't go for it.

I think Freedman/Wayfarer have backed themselves into a corner here.

April 18th is the deadline that matters -- generally when you move to file an amended complaint you actually attach your proposed amended complaint to that request. That's the whole point. So when they move on Friday, they'll need to attach what they propose to file as their amended complaint.

[Anonymous]

I also noted many pages ago that it's fairly normal to include a proposed amended complaint with your opposition to a MTD, showing the judge how you would remedy the issues complained about in the MTD. Freedman could have done that, at least by the time he was filing his last opposition and -- haha -- had his roadmap of what needed to be fixed. But he was too lazy. He prefers talking to the press and appearing on TV over putting his back into the actual work (or more likely presiding effectively over his associates who do that work, but it's still work).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sarowitz is surely spending a fortune already but he might want to consider hiring better lawyers.

He’s in his 60s, has donated hundreds of millions of dollars and said he wants to give away most of his wealth before he dies. Seems he’s ok spending money on what he believes in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone bring up the new reporting from IF, yet? She’s been slowly and discretely scrubbing her social media of Blake and the press reported that a source close to IF said those close to her (remember she’s a Clooney) advised her to delete the photos. The source also said Blake wanted to drag IF into the lawsuit to back up her accusations but she couldn’t do that because she didn’t see any of this alleged harassment with her own eyes. She apparently feels “shafted” by Blake.

A couple of people did discuss her social media a few pages ago. Not too far back, but then, there's lots of ridiculous bickering to scroll through.

The second point is new to me. I think the idea though would be for Ferrer to testify to her own creepy or whatever interactions with Baldoni (no idea if she actually feels that way). That would establish his pattern of pushing boundaries or whatever. I think she's the one that Lively claimed Baldoni went up to and said that was hot, did you practice? I don't see that as SH but I guess Blake feels it fits the pattern. She'll need somebody to testify to that, if not Ferrer then someone from crew, but I'm sure she'd rather have it be the actress testifying she was uncomfortable. That's a difficult situation for a witness, even if she agrees with Blake she might not want to discuss that publicly, or if she does not agree with Blake, would not want to be seen as not supporting another woman. I can understand not wanting to get dragged into this.

[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.

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).

This was a great comeback, btw. Kudos to this attorney for this easy but wholly appropriate response. 🫡

[Anonymous]

easy = sassy (sorry)