Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Thanks for the links, pp! |
Anonymous
Not saying there weren’t bots, just that they weren’t proven to be from depp. Associated with depp and deployed by depp are two very different things. It was a big case and there’s lots of opportunists out there who would want to capitalize. Similarly it won’t be enough for Blake to prove there were bots used against her, they need the prove Justin’s camp was responsible for them. I don’t think they’ll find that smoking gun b/c I don’t think his team did that. There’s lots of evidence that he’s produced showing his team wasn’t using bots and had observed that they didn’t need to do anything because she was sinking herself. Combined with Wallace’s’ sworn declaration and Blake’s own data showing online sentiment had turned negative against her before he was even hired, and I don’t think she’ll be able to prove there was a smear campaign. She also tries to suggest Wayfarer set her up to look unserious in the marketing by providing campaign guidance that they didn’t stick to themselves. I think this is one of Lively’s most insincere arguments because she leaves out that Sony and Ryan’s firm handled the marketing, and even though Wayfarer was cut out, Heath still reached out to Sony on premiere day advising that Blake take a different approach to the marketing and incorporate more DV, given the backlash they were seeing. Does that sound like someone who wanted to see Blake and by extension their own movie criticized in the press? I’m sure Heath would’ve given this advice to Blake directly but she was refusing to speak to them. Common sense will have to prevail at some point. There’s too much evidence showing Blake was the problem. |
Anonymous
|
It's true a lot of the evidence cuts both ways and it's genuinely hard to say which side would prevail at trial.
But I think it's important to remember this is a civil case and the burden of proof is just preponderance of the evidence -- 50%+1, or more likely than not. So as an example, for Lively to "prove" that Baldoni/Abel/Nathan were responsible for a bot campaign against here, she doesn't necessarily need an airtight case. She needs to convince jurors that it is more likely than not that a bot campaign against her existed, and that it's more likely than not that Baldoni and his team initiated the campaign. So she doesn't necessarily need a smoking gun, you can make the case with a variety of circumstantial evidence IF it convinces a jury. As a lawyer, that's one of the things that interests me about the case. I don't think it's clear at all who will prevail, and I find the facts pretty interesting with a lot of conflicting elements. You can make an argument both directions. A big part of me really hopes the case makes it to trial because I'd love to see how this plays out in a classroom with competing testimony and evidence. I am far from ready to take bets on the outcome! |
Anonymous
|
Yikes! (From the second link):
“The report highlighted tweets targeting Barlow, among others, with offensive language. In one particularly egregious instance, a photo of a Heard supporter's deceased daughter was appended to a new account, which was then used to target the woman. …. Attacks against Barlow included a tweet saying she would "look good" crucified." |
Anonymous
DP and lawyer. And ditto. And I have to admit I feel that way about the defamation case too. And Palin v NYT starts again today… |
Anonymous
Not a lawyer, but team Baldoni and also believe it can go either way. I hope it doesn’t because I genuinely think that would be a miscarriage of justice, but perhaps the good thing is that it will cause people to scrutinize the law more. I do think 47.1 is being abused in this case and the law probably needs to be amended, and I do think Blake’s team played some shady games with the subpoena and have been forum shopping from the start, just to give a few examples. I think it’s interesting team Blake hates BF so much but doesn’t seem to have a problem with the underhanded practices of Blake’s lawyers. Also think this case is causing people to rethink how much they can trust mainstream media. Anyway, BF wrote to the court saying Wayfarer will not move for leave to amend before the MTDs are ruled on. |
Anonymous
That feels risky. |
Anonymous
|
Does anyone have Freedman's letter? It's not available for free yet on court listener.
I think he saw the writing on the wall that a bunch of his claims were going to get dismissed with prejudice since he can't support them. But Liman doesn't seem to have a lot of patience and will still probably dismiss them with prejudice since Freedman hasn't even bothered to try. Can't believe Team Baldoni is still cheerleading Bryan Freedman. |
Anonymous
Ah, providing myself for anyone who is interested (it's up now): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.178.0.pdf |
Anonymous
His letter cites one of Liman's cases: The Wayfarer Parties stand behind the operative First Amended Complaint and are confident that, for the reasons outlined in their opposition briefs (Dkt. Nos. 121, 127, 160, 162), the currently-pending motions to dismiss will be denied. If the Court were to grant one or more of the motions to any extent, the Wayfarer Parties will move for leave to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and seek a commensurate modification of the Scheduling Order under the “good cause” standard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and consistent with the guidance set forth in Furry Puppet Studio Inc. v. Fall Out Boy, No. 19-CV-2345 (LJL), 2020 WL 4978080 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020). I looked up the case to see if there was any special circumstances there. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/63d9ead24c7d207dacc2908e That case makes Liman seem even less flexible than I thought. I don't really understand Wayfarer's strategy here. |
Anonymous
Responding to myself again: In filing the letter noting Baldoni would not file an amendment, Fritz (the Baldoni atty) noted a Second Circuit case that overturned a lower court's rejection of a plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint. The lower court had cited to the good cause standard, but the Second Circuit said that when you were working under a scheduling order that did not set an absolute end date to allowing amendments, you don't really apply the good cause standard from Rule 16, you apply the more liberal standard from Rule 15(a)(2) (where courts should "freely give leave where justice so requires" and reject amendments when there has been "undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or futility" (cleaned up)). (FRCP Rule 16(b)(4) notes that scheduling order only may be modified for "good cause" and with the judge's consent.) "Good cause" was the standard Liman cited back in February when granting and denying in part (mostly denying) Lively's request for an extension in filing their own amended complaint. Fritz's letter says that after the MTD orders (and unlike Fritz, I will assume some claims are getting dismissed), Baldoni will "move for leave to amend pursuant to FRCP 15(a)(2) and seek a commensurate modification of the Scheduling Order under the 'good cause' standard pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(4) and consistent with the guidance set forth in Furry Puppet Studio." In this way Fritz is basically citing both standards and suggesting that if Freedman doesn't allow them to amend all their claims, they may get overturned on appeal. I understand why Fritz is citing to Sacerdote, since it overturns rejection of an amendment when a deadline for amendment was set up in a form scheduling order, as here. But I think the form scheduling order in Sacerdote was different than the one here. In Sacerdote, the form scheduling order did not set an outside date for amending the complaint, just a date by which you couldn't amend without court permission. ("Amended pleadings may not be filed, and no party may be joined, without leave of Court more than 10 days after the filing of this Order or the filing of a responsive pleading, whichever occurs first.") But here, the scheduling order actually does give a final date, and not just a date after which you'd have to seek the court's permission. ("Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than April 18, 2025.") In this way, Fritz's citation to Sacerdote seems like a bit of a red herring to me. The Lively/Baldoni scheduling order does set out the final date for amendments, so Freedman definitely will need to show good cause to amend. Sacerdote 2nd Circuit case (starts at p.30): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-2707/18-2707-2021-08-16.html Scheduling order here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.51.0_1.pdf (April 18 is listed as the final motion to amend date). |
Anonymous
| Thank you for posting the Sacerdote case. I was the person above who said I didn't understand Wayfarer's strategy, and that was a good explanation (I think we posted around the same time) though I do agree with your analysis that it isn't a sure bet. |
Anonymous
Yes, thanks! We did cross post, thanks for posting Furry Puppet Studios, I had not read that, and sheesh, it actually makes me a bit more worried for Freedman. Liman is definitely holding to the good cause standard. Whoever was saying above that Liman rushes his cases in order to encourage settlement may have it wrong, because in Furry Puppet Studios, Liman denied a consent request for more time from the parties because they wanted to conduct settlement negotiations (ha!). Freedman said no and insisted that they stick to the schedule instead since they hadn't shown good cause. This does give me concern that Freedman/Fritz are not providing a proposed amended complaint by Friday but intend to file something later and claim good cause. The court specifically rejected Fritz's explicit request to do just this and told them to stick to the deadline, and now they are saying, nah, we'll just do what we originally said we'd do. I'm not saying Liman will dismiss everything, obv, but I do believe Liman will dismiss claims with prejudice and Freedman has now completely missing his chance to repair those (e.g., at a minimum, some of the claims against PR parties etc.). Maybe he couldn't do so anyway, so there's no real loss. It's ballsy to do this when Liman basically told him to meet the deadline, though, so that rather fits my impression of Freedman. Does he lose a lot? |
Anonymous
PP, and yeah, in Furry Puppet, Liman basically calls out that carelessness, an attorney's busy schedule, and a change in litigation strategies aren't good reasons, so I feel like he's not going to accept "we wanted everything wrapped up in a nice bow for us before we bothered" as good cause, and they have not brought up any other compelling reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if opposing counsel tries to work Freedman's "road map" comments into a future response. Those comments are here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1jngbqx/freedman_is_a_gentleman_and_a_scholar_what_a_mic/ |
Anonymous
Yeah! Honestly, I was surprised and a little impressed that Gottlieb et al had managed to restrain themselves from citing that language in their opposition to Fritz’s motion to extend, ha! People on Freedman’s side cheered at that when he said it, for sure, but it hits a bit different now. |