Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

You’re deliberately omitting the MTD context. Sure, Freedman can file an amended complaint on Friday as per every claim (as can Lively in fact). (Of course, Liman doesn’t necessarily need to accept it all.)

My question was more about whether you still think Liman will be quite permissive in accepting multiple amended complaints over time as you previously suggested. I think there will be one more after whatever Freedman submits on Friday (to clean up whatever gets taken out), but I’m not convinced there will be much beyond that.

Specifically in evaluating the MTDs, Liman actually can just look at this Friday’s amended complaint and determine whether he will dismiss certain claims with prejudice (because the amended complaint will show that allowing Baldoni to amend would be futile at this point, he doesn’t have the evidence and can’t make out the claims).

I actually think Liman is likely to begin dismissing with prejudice at this point for many of these claims against parties where Freedman has evidence re Lively but no evidence re the PR people or NYT or even sometimes Reynolds.

I have also seen cases where the judge doesn’t have debriefing on the MTDs following an amended complaint, and just reads the current MTDs to apply to the amended complaint, and analyzes whether insufficiencies still apply. Not sure Lively parties would like that, but I have seen it done that way.

You all seemed to be suggesting a much more elaborate series of amended complaints than what I have described, and I wondered whether the judge’s enforcement of the parties’ mutually agreed upon deadline had affected that.

[Anonymous]

“Just as we said” lol

[Anonymous]

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 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.

You’re deliberately omitting the MTD context. Sure, Freedman can file an amended complaint on Friday as per every claim (as can Lively in fact). (Of course, Liman doesn’t necessarily need to accept it all.)

My question was more about whether you still think Liman will be quite permissive in accepting multiple amended complaints over time as you previously suggested. I think there will be one more after whatever Freedman submits on Friday (to clean up whatever gets taken out), but I’m not convinced there will be much beyond that.

Specifically in evaluating the MTDs, Liman actually can just look at this Friday’s amended complaint and determine whether he will dismiss certain claims with prejudice (because the amended complaint will show that allowing Baldoni to amend would be futile at this point, he doesn’t have the evidence and can’t make out the claims).

I actually think Liman is likely to begin dismissing with prejudice at this point for many of these claims against parties where Freedman has evidence re Lively but no evidence re the PR people or NYT or even sometimes Reynolds.

I have also seen cases where the judge doesn’t have debriefing on the MTDs following an amended complaint, and just reads the current MTDs to apply to the amended complaint, and analyzes whether insufficiencies still apply. Not sure Lively parties would like that, but I have seen it done that way.

You all seemed to be suggesting a much more elaborate series of amended complaints than what I have described, and I wondered whether the judge’s enforcement of the parties’ mutually agreed upon deadline had affected that.

I expect that the judge will consider this amended complaint to be plaintiffs’ chance to address pleading arguments made in the exisiting MTD. It’s not the most efficient use of time to do this before his ruling but he seems to like to do things his own way. He is a Trump appointee after all. If defendants’ raise different arguments in response to those complaints, not sure how he will react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

The judge is allowing them to replead everything. Do you take issue with the accuracy of thar statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

The judge is allowing them to replead everything. Do you take issue with the accuracy of thar statement?

The judge is allowing them to TRY to replead everything; the judge is not actually accepting whatever they file on Friday as one of the many amended complaints Team Baldoni suggested would be filed in this case. What they file will just be a proposed AC, not an actual AC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

The judge is allowing them to replead everything. Do you take issue with the accuracy of thar statement?

The judge is allowing them to TRY to replead everything; the judge is not actually accepting whatever they file on Friday as one of the many amended complaints Team Baldoni suggested would be filed in this case. What they file will just be a proposed AC, not an actual AC.

+1

[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.

Gee, I must have missed the complaints about Team Baldoni’s holier than thou attitude in comments like the above when it happened, telling me I was silly and had missed very basic stuff above but then turning out to be quite wrong. Okay for thee I guess.

(Still zero Team Baldoni attorneys so far admitting they were wrong or explaining why.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

[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.

Gee, I must have missed the complaints about Team Baldoni’s holier than thou attitude in comments like the above when it happened, telling me I was silly and had missed very basic stuff above but then turning out to be quite wrong. Okay for thee I guess.

(Still zero Team Baldoni attorneys so far admitting they were wrong or explaining why.)

I wasn’t this poster, but have already responded to you twice that the denial of this extension is less strange than the denial of the consented to extension request of the Lively group earlier in this case. It means nothing more than this judge is much less likely to grant extensions than your typical federal judge. It also means he is trying to pressure ALL parties to settle by accelerating the time line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

Didn't realize that was the only thing that could make a person slimy or unrootable.

[Anonymous]

So BF says he still hasn’t seen the “phantom”subpoena. Daily Mail has shared more information about the subpoena Stephanie showed them. They said it was signed by Blake’s lawyers at manatt out of NY but was not stamped by a court. I’m guessing this is why DM initially referred to the subpoena they had seen as a “purported subpoena”. Stephanie Jones’ lawyers said if BF thinks the subpoena is fake he should sign an affidavit saying so and make a discovery request. This is all very strange. If the subpoena supposedly exonerates Steph, why show it to the tabloids and not attach it to their MTD? Lawyers any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.