Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lawyer on tik tok has a theory that Blake initially sued Jones and during arbitration Jones said you’re barking up the wrong tree sue Jen and Wayfarer instead. She theorizes that the subpoena was issued as part of that case against Jones, which is why Jones doesn’t want the public to see the actual document.

The lawyer thinks a pre litigation subpoena is less likely and she gives a few reasons. First, you have to give a really good reason for a pre litigation subpoena like the records are likely to be destroyed (in which case the court is more likely to grant a motion to preserve) or a person is very sick and likely to die so they need to be deposed. She said courts don’t like fishing expeditions so the bar for pre litigation subpoena is high. She also said that in California a pre litigation order to produce documents would be called a court order, not a subpoena, so the terminology jones and Blake’s attorneys have been using don’t track with the pre litigation theory. The final reason she gave was that even if the documents were subpoenaed, jones could have moved to quash and certainly should’ve notified wayfarer. She thinks that the fact jones did not do those two things to protect client confidentiality shows she had some ulterior motive (like deterring her own lawsuit).

A "lawyer" said this? Good lord.

[Anonymous]

Why do the Reynolds/Lively briefs and letter briefs sometimes follow cites with the parenthetical “cleaned up”? So it will say Furry Puppet Studio, 193 F.Supp.2d 879 (cleaned up) for example. I noticed like a dozen cites like this in the motion to dismiss and thought it was maybe a paralegal’s citechecking note that they forgot to erase, but I see it again in their letter brief opposing the extension. Is this some normal practice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Reynolds/Lively briefs and letter briefs sometimes follow cites with the parenthetical “cleaned up”? So it will say Furry Puppet Studio, 193 F.Supp.2d 879 (cleaned up) for example. I noticed like a dozen cites like this in the motion to dismiss and thought it was maybe a paralegal’s citechecking note that they forgot to erase, but I see it again in their letter brief opposing the extension. Is this some normal practice?

Apparently it’s a new bluebook term that means a quote was altered, usually to drop internal case citations.

[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.

Where did these many lawyers go and why are they not explaining how they completely misjudged what they said was clearly very simple issue of this extension request? Even after the ruling, one of you popped up with more mocking, and yet no explaining. How is it that you completely misread what would happen here?

I am also curious whether the judge enforcing the amendment deadline affects your oft-stated views in this thread that the judge will allow multiple amended complaints from the parties here. I think having Freedman’s proposed amended complaint by the time the judge rules on the MTDs will better allow Liman to figure out whether amendment would be futile — ie, he may read the MTDs in combination with the amended complaint and rule on them together. So if the complaint doesn’t fix the issue, he will be more likely to dismiss with prejudice. And frankly, that seems fair.

I also wonder whether Lively/Reynolds will move to amend their own complaint again by the deadline, either in connection with the Wallace MTD or to include evidence from any discovery they have received so far (or both). I think there could be a real risk of Wallace’s case getting severed to Texas otherwise. Though I’d still be shocked if Wallace didn’t do a speck of work during his 8 day holiday vacation in New York.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Reynolds/Lively briefs and letter briefs sometimes follow cites with the parenthetical “cleaned up”? So it will say Furry Puppet Studio, 193 F.Supp.2d 879 (cleaned up) for example. I noticed like a dozen cites like this in the motion to dismiss and thought it was maybe a paralegal’s citechecking note that they forgot to erase, but I see it again in their letter brief opposing the extension. Is this some normal practice?

Apparently it’s a new bluebook term that means a quote was altered, usually to drop internal case citations.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

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.

Where did these many lawyers go and why are they not explaining how they completely misjudged what they said was clearly very simple issue of this extension request? Even after the ruling, one of you popped up with more mocking, and yet no explaining. How is it that you completely misread what would happen here?

I am also curious whether the judge enforcing the amendment deadline affects your oft-stated views in this thread that the judge will allow multiple amended complaints from the parties here. I think having Freedman’s proposed amended complaint by the time the judge rules on the MTDs will better allow Liman to figure out whether amendment would be futile — ie, he may read the MTDs in combination with the amended complaint and rule on them together. So if the complaint doesn’t fix the issue, he will be more likely to dismiss with prejudice. And frankly, that seems fair.

I also wonder whether Lively/Reynolds will move to amend their own complaint again by the deadline, either in connection with the Wallace MTD or to include evidence from any discovery they have received so far (or both). I think there could be a real risk of Wallace’s case getting severed to Texas otherwise. Though I’d still be shocked if Wallace didn’t do a speck of work during his 8 day holiday vacation in New York.

Where dod they go? It”s a beautiful spring weekend,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Reynolds/Lively briefs and letter briefs sometimes follow cites with the parenthetical “cleaned up”? So it will say Furry Puppet Studio, 193 F.Supp.2d 879 (cleaned up) for example. I noticed like a dozen cites like this in the motion to dismiss and thought it was maybe a paralegal’s citechecking note that they forgot to erase, but I see it again in their letter brief opposing the extension. Is this some normal practice?

Apparently it’s a new bluebook term that means a quote was altered, usually to drop internal case citations.

Thank you!

Old lawyer here. Seriously?? ‘Cleaned up’?? Not a Latin phrase? Wow. Times have changed

[Anonymous]

Is there any news on timing for the ruling on the NYT MTD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Reynolds/Lively briefs and letter briefs sometimes follow cites with the parenthetical “cleaned up”? So it will say Furry Puppet Studio, 193 F.Supp.2d 879 (cleaned up) for example. I noticed like a dozen cites like this in the motion to dismiss and thought it was maybe a paralegal’s citechecking note that they forgot to erase, but I see it again in their letter brief opposing the extension. Is this some normal practice?

Apparently it’s a new bluebook term that means a quote was altered, usually to drop internal case citations.

Thank you!

Old lawyer here. Seriously?? ‘Cleaned up’?? Not a Latin phrase? Wow. Times have changed

It used to be “internal quotations omitted,” which is much better than “cleaned up.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Reynolds/Lively briefs and letter briefs sometimes follow cites with the parenthetical “cleaned up”? So it will say Furry Puppet Studio, 193 F.Supp.2d 879 (cleaned up) for example. I noticed like a dozen cites like this in the motion to dismiss and thought it was maybe a paralegal’s citechecking note that they forgot to erase, but I see it again in their letter brief opposing the extension. Is this some normal practice?

Apparently it’s a new bluebook term that means a quote was altered, usually to drop internal case citations.

Thank you!

Old lawyer here. Seriously?? ‘Cleaned up’?? Not a Latin phrase? Wow. Times have changed

It used to be “internal quotations omitted,” which is much better than “cleaned up.”

Not to get too off track, but I think it’s intended to be broader than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any news on timing for the ruling on the NYT MTD?

No. Judges don’t normally announce things like that. At most, I’d think Liman might propose or ask for a hearing or hearing schedule. But it would be unusual for Liman to give himself a deadline for when he’d issue his orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any news on timing for the ruling on the NYT MTD?

No. Judges don’t normally announce things like that. At most, I’d think Liman might propose or ask for a hearing or hearing schedule. But it would be unusual for Liman to give himself a deadline for when he’d issue his orders.

If he wants the amended complaint prior to deciding, it’s going to be months. He likely will give defendants another chance to respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any news on timing for the ruling on the NYT MTD?

No. Judges don’t normally announce things like that. At most, I’d think Liman might propose or ask for a hearing or hearing schedule. But it would be unusual for Liman to give himself a deadline for when he’d issue his orders.

If he wants the amended complaint prior to deciding, it’s going to be months. He likely will give defendants another chance to respond.

Well that's the thing -- Wayfarer has not filed a request for leave to amend. They have until Friday. They really are supposed to attache the amended complaint to their motion if they want it granted (that's one reason they asked for this deadline to be moved back). So yeah, if Wayfarer files a request for leave to amend by the 18th, and they include their amended complaint, then the Lively parties would of course have a chance to respond to the amend filing and perhaps amend their MTDs if needed. And then, yeah, there would probably be a hearing or series of hearings, and then he'll decide the MTDs all at once.

But if Wayfarer doesn't file that request for leave to amend this week, then potentially there could be a decision on the MTDs with in the next month or so, and a hearing could happen fairly quickly because there are fewer outstanding pleadings in that case.

I will be shocked if Wayfarer doesn't request leave to amend but some of their recent moves make me wonder. I am a bit surprise they asked for an extension on this because they have been aware of the group pleading issue for a long time and would assume that an amended complaint was in the works for over a month at this point and had been worked on to reflect arguments made in the MTDs, to cure issues raised in those pleadings. All good sense would assume that's what we'll see on Friday. But the extension request was filed rather late and indicates that as of last week, they weren't ready to do that by this Friday. So... we'll see. Presumably they'll submit something but who knows.

[Anonymous]

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 am also curious whether the judge enforcing the amendment deadline affects your oft-stated views in this thread that the judge will allow multiple amended complaints from the parties here. I think having Freedman’s proposed amended complaint by the time the judge rules on the MTDs will better allow Liman to figure out whether amendment would be futile — ie, he may read the MTDs in combination with the amended complaint and rule on them together. So if the complaint doesn’t fix the issue, he will be more likely to dismiss with prejudice. And frankly, that seems

To state the obvious, although the deadline is tight, the Judge is giving the Wayfarer defendants the chance to replead literally every claim. Just as we said.

[Anonymous]

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 am also curious whether the judge enforcing the amendment deadline affects your oft-stated views in this thread that the judge will allow multiple amended complaints from the parties here. I think having Freedman’s proposed amended complaint by the time the judge rules on the MTDs will better allow Liman to figure out whether amendment would be futile — ie, he may read the MTDs in combination with the amended complaint and rule on them together. So if the complaint doesn’t fix the issue, he will be more likely to dismiss with prejudice. And frankly, that seems

To state the obvious, although the deadline is tight, the Judge is giving the Wayfarer defendants the chance to replead literally every claim. Just as we said.

Where did he do that?