Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Blake is on the times list for most influential people lol

https://people.com/blake-lively-makes-time-magazine-100-most-influential-time100-11716222?taid=67ffbba516f5bc00014b67cc&utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com

[Anonymous]

Lmao, I don't hate Blake like others do but that is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lmao, I don't hate Blake like others do but that is hilarious.

Lol it’s so corrupt. She’s on the list for a donation she and Ryan made to the naacp a few years ago when they were on their apology tour for their plantation wedding. The donation was only 200k so probably less than her wardrobe in iewu. Time and the NAACP should be embarrassed. TMZ already has a poll up and I’m sure you know how that’s trending. It’s quite hilarious, the options are: she deserved it or “time” for a new list lol. I think this will actually have the opposite of the intended effect and will lead to more bad publicity for her.

[Anonymous]

I think maybe a big part of the reason why Freedman doesn’t want to amend the complaints now like the judge wanted is because they don’t really have enough facts in from discovery to support their claims yet. So he just wants to stretch things out as long as he can, while still receiving and reviewing produced documents, before he commits to a take.

I think it must be frustrating for Liman because Liman has told Freeman that the attachment should be struck and also that the NYT MTD had a good chance of succeeding. Now Freedman has known this for months but hasn’t done anything to incorporate any necessary facts to substantiate his claims from the attachment into the complaint. Freedman has created such a mess for Liman and his court clerks to weave their way through. If the problem was just the FAC itself it wouldn’t be that bad, but Freedman seems to be burdening Liman with going through the attachment for facts that he might consider relevant.

I’m not sure Liman needs to do that. Maybe Liman could have made this easier on himself by striking the attachment weeks ago, thus putting more burden on Freedman to amend now if he wants any facts from the 300+ paragraph attachment to be considered. Maybe Lyman will still strike the attachment and not consider it in the MTD, and that will just be a bad surprise for Freedman.

[Anonymous]

Can we say that this case has at least brought positive attention to workplace sexual harassment issues? They are always messy and emotionally charged but we need to talk about it.

[Anonymous]

I think it must be frustrating for Liman because Liman has told Freeman that the attachment should be struck and also that the NYT MTD had a good chance of succeeding.

And also, that he's been on notice of the alleged defects in the FAC as described in the MTDs.

If the problem was just the FAC itself it wouldn’t be that bad, but Freedman seems to be burdening Liman with going through the attachment for facts that he might consider relevant.

I’m not sure Liman needs to do that. Maybe Liman could have made this easier on himself by striking the attachment weeks ago, thus putting more burden on Freedman to amend now if he wants any facts from the 300+ paragraph attachment to be considered. Maybe Lyman will still strike the attachment and not consider it in the MTD, and that will just be a bad surprise for Freedman.

I'd expect the latter. It's not the judge's responsibility to make his arguments for him. In this transcript, the timeline is discussed starting at page 36 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.18.12.pdf

Liman seems, uh, very inclined to grant the motion to strike, but he wants it done via formal motion. I can't really follow Freedman's argument, but he says he would be happy to incorporate it into the complaint if the judge wishes. Gottlieb's position is this a statement of facts but it does not give them the opportunity to admit or deny each allegation like a normal complaint. It's actually Sloane's attorneys who first end up making the motion to strike though. It shouldn't be a surprise at all if Liman simply strikes and disregards the timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake is on the times list for most influential people lol

https://people.com/blake-lively-makes-time-magazine-100-most-influential-time100-11716222?taid=67ffbba516f5bc00014b67cc&utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com

How much did she pay for that? Disgusting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think it must be frustrating for Liman because Liman has told Freeman that the attachment should be struck and also that the NYT MTD had a good chance of succeeding.

And also, that he's been on notice of the alleged defects in the FAC as described in the MTDs.

If the problem was just the FAC itself it wouldn’t be that bad, but Freedman seems to be burdening Liman with going through the attachment for facts that he might consider relevant.

I’m not sure Liman needs to do that. Maybe Liman could have made this easier on himself by striking the attachment weeks ago, thus putting more burden on Freedman to amend now if he wants any facts from the 300+ paragraph attachment to be considered. Maybe Lyman will still strike the attachment and not consider it in the MTD, and that will just be a bad surprise for Freedman.

I'd expect the latter. It's not the judge's responsibility to make his arguments for him. In this transcript, the timeline is discussed starting at page 36 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.18.12.pdf

Liman seems, uh, very inclined to grant the motion to strike, but he wants it done via formal motion. I can't really follow Freedman's argument, but he says he would be happy to incorporate it into the complaint if the judge wishes. Gottlieb's position is this a statement of facts but it does not give them the opportunity to admit or deny each allegation like a normal complaint. It's actually Sloane's attorneys who first end up making the motion to strike though. It shouldn't be a surprise at all if Liman simply strikes and disregards the timeline.

I forgot that anyone had formally moved to strike the timeline, but that does make sense. I thought the transcript (thank you!) made the judge seem open to striking it and showed he did want a formal motion, but if there were comments by him showing he seemed very inclined to strike it, I might have missed them.

I poked around in Judge Liman’s cases on Court listener (free!) over the last few days and I have seen him deny a few motions to strike, though those were quite different than here. I’ve also seen him dismiss parts of a complaint and no further complaint was filed, it was just understood those claims were dead. I also ran a few searches and I don’t see his cases going into fifth and sixth or later amended complaint territory. There were maybe two fourth amended complaints, and maybe ten third amended complaints. That said, court listener may not track the whole universe of his cases.

I wonder whether Liman will rule on these MTDs, give Freedman leave to amend once more — then I wonder whether there will be one more round of MTDs to deal with the fallout of the timeline if it’s struck. I’m not sure there will be multiple rounds, though I see that the current complaint/timeline cannot stand as it exists.

I think the clear benefit to Freedman in delaying amendment as long as possible is getting access to the doc productions to try to substantiate his claims when he does amend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake is on the times list for most influential people lol

https://people.com/blake-lively-makes-time-magazine-100-most-influential-time100-11716222?taid=67ffbba516f5bc00014b67cc&utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com

How much did she pay for that? Disgusting

There’s a blind item circulating that RR called in favors for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it must be frustrating for Liman because Liman has told Freeman that the attachment should be struck and also that the NYT MTD had a good chance of succeeding.

And also, that he's been on notice of the alleged defects in the FAC as described in the MTDs.

If the problem was just the FAC itself it wouldn’t be that bad, but Freedman seems to be burdening Liman with going through the attachment for facts that he might consider relevant.

I’m not sure Liman needs to do that. Maybe Liman could have made this easier on himself by striking the attachment weeks ago, thus putting more burden on Freedman to amend now if he wants any facts from the 300+ paragraph attachment to be considered. Maybe Lyman will still strike the attachment and not consider it in the MTD, and that will just be a bad surprise for Freedman.

I'd expect the latter. It's not the judge's responsibility to make his arguments for him. In this transcript, the timeline is discussed starting at page 36 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.18.12.pdf

Liman seems, uh, very inclined to grant the motion to strike, but he wants it done via formal motion. I can't really follow Freedman's argument, but he says he would be happy to incorporate it into the complaint if the judge wishes. Gottlieb's position is this a statement of facts but it does not give them the opportunity to admit or deny each allegation like a normal complaint. It's actually Sloane's attorneys who first end up making the motion to strike though. It shouldn't be a surprise at all if Liman simply strikes and disregards the timeline.

I forgot that anyone had formally moved to strike the timeline, but that does make sense. I thought the transcript (thank you!) made the judge seem open to striking it and showed he did want a formal motion, but if there were comments by him showing he seemed very inclined to strike it, I might have missed them.

I was referring to these comments by the judge (bolded). I believe he will strike the timeline and will not consider any facts therein when deciding on the MTDs. It will then be a matter of Freedman having to request leave to amend and do that work himself. This hearing was on February 3 and the judge is already saying incorporating this stuff is a second amended complaint so I doubt he is super impressed that they haven't gotten around to this yet. On re-read, it's also interesting that Freedman is saying the timeline will make discovery much easier because they've already put it all out there, as if his timeline is not a one-sided narrative with the facts that suit his clients, just like Blake's complaint or any client's complaint.


THE COURT: Are you going to move to strike that?
MR. GOTTLIEB: That is what I am getting to, your
Honor. We haven't yet decided, but we may need to move to
strike document 50-1 in large part because there's no mechanism
we think for us to admit or deny the allegations in it.
They are raising defamation claims where their
pleading burden on an actual malice standard requires a
significant amount of specificity in terms of the allegations
that they are making. So we anticipate moving to strike Docket
50-1, and that does affect a bunch of other things in terms of
the timing of how discovery may line up, and the motion --
THE COURT: Let me interrupt you for a second and just
ask your adversary.
I mean, the way the federal rules work is that, as the
plaintiff, you can attach an instrument to a complaint. For
example, you can attach a contract if you're suing on a
contract.
But the law in the circuit is pretty clear that you
can't just attach a factual narrative for the reasons that
Mr. Gottlieb has identified, which is that there's no mechanism
for responding to the factual narrative that's attached.
Frankly, it is not even clear that Rule 11 applies to
the attachment as opposed to the body of the pleadings itself.
So what is the purpose of that attachment?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, the purpose of the
attachment, your Honor, was to make sure that -- frankly, it
was almost -- to make sure that all of the text messages and
all of the information was provided that formed the basis for
the underlying claims.
That was the purpose of putting that forth, so there
would actually be the documents that we had. It is going to
make discovery much easier, because we're putting it all out
there and have nothing to hide at all.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, that is actually almost
exactly what the federal rules are designed to prevent as I
understand them.
You can quote an e-mail or text message in the body of
a complaint, but you can't then just attach the stuff that the
moving party, the defendant on a motion to dismiss, can then
refer to the documents to the extent that they're integral.
But you can't just give me a complaint and then give me a whole
bunch of documents.
MR. FRIEDMAN: It is not a whole bunch of documents.
It is actually a timeline that is incorporated in the complaint
as an attachment. Whether it was put in the body of the
attachment, where some of it already is, or whether it was
separated as an attachment and then incorporated by reference,
we are happy, if your Honor wishes to, include it in the body,
but it feels like it serves the same purpose.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, that would be a second
amended complaint, and I am not going to express a view with
respect to that. I am just asking my questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it must be frustrating for Liman because Liman has told Freeman that the attachment should be struck and also that the NYT MTD had a good chance of succeeding.

And also, that he's been on notice of the alleged defects in the FAC as described in the MTDs.

If the problem was just the FAC itself it wouldn’t be that bad, but Freedman seems to be burdening Liman with going through the attachment for facts that he might consider relevant.

I’m not sure Liman needs to do that. Maybe Liman could have made this easier on himself by striking the attachment weeks ago, thus putting more burden on Freedman to amend now if he wants any facts from the 300+ paragraph attachment to be considered. Maybe Lyman will still strike the attachment and not consider it in the MTD, and that will just be a bad surprise for Freedman.

I'd expect the latter. It's not the judge's responsibility to make his arguments for him. In this transcript, the timeline is discussed starting at page 36 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.18.12.pdf

Liman seems, uh, very inclined to grant the motion to strike, but he wants it done via formal motion. I can't really follow Freedman's argument, but he says he would be happy to incorporate it into the complaint if the judge wishes. Gottlieb's position is this a statement of facts but it does not give them the opportunity to admit or deny each allegation like a normal complaint. It's actually Sloane's attorneys who first end up making the motion to strike though. It shouldn't be a surprise at all if Liman simply strikes and disregards the timeline.

I forgot that anyone had formally moved to strike the timeline, but that does make sense. I thought the transcript (thank you!) made the judge seem open to striking it and showed he did want a formal motion, but if there were comments by him showing he seemed very inclined to strike it, I might have missed them.

I was referring to these comments by the judge (bolded). I believe he will strike the timeline and will not consider any facts therein when deciding on the MTDs. It will then be a matter of Freedman having to request leave to amend and do that work himself. This hearing was on February 3 and the judge is already saying incorporating this stuff is a second amended complaint so I doubt he is super impressed that they haven't gotten around to this yet. On re-read, it's also interesting that Freedman is saying the timeline will make discovery much easier because they've already put it all out there, as if his timeline is not a one-sided narrative with the facts that suit his clients, just like Blake's complaint or any client's complaint.


THE COURT: Are you going to move to strike that?
MR. GOTTLIEB: That is what I am getting to, your
Honor. We haven't yet decided, but we may need to move to
strike document 50-1 in large part because there's no mechanism
we think for us to admit or deny the allegations in it.
They are raising defamation claims where their
pleading burden on an actual malice standard requires a
significant amount of specificity in terms of the allegations
that they are making. So we anticipate moving to strike Docket
50-1, and that does affect a bunch of other things in terms of
the timing of how discovery may line up, and the motion --
THE COURT: Let me interrupt you for a second and just
ask your adversary.
I mean, the way the federal rules work is that, as the
plaintiff, you can attach an instrument to a complaint. For
example, you can attach a contract if you're suing on a
contract.
But the law in the circuit is pretty clear that you
can't just attach a factual narrative for the reasons that
Mr. Gottlieb has identified, which is that there's no mechanism
for responding to the factual narrative that's attached.
Frankly, it is not even clear that Rule 11 applies to
the attachment as opposed to the body of the pleadings itself.
So what is the purpose of that attachment?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, the purpose of the
attachment, your Honor, was to make sure that -- frankly, it
was almost -- to make sure that all of the text messages and
all of the information was provided that formed the basis for
the underlying claims.
That was the purpose of putting that forth, so there
would actually be the documents that we had. It is going to
make discovery much easier, because we're putting it all out
there and have nothing to hide at all.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, that is actually almost
exactly what the federal rules are designed to prevent as I
understand them.
You can quote an e-mail or text message in the body of
a complaint, but you can't then just attach the stuff that the
moving party, the defendant on a motion to dismiss, can then
refer to the documents to the extent that they're integral.
But you can't just give me a complaint and then give me a whole
bunch of documents.
MR. FRIEDMAN: It is not a whole bunch of documents.
It is actually a timeline that is incorporated in the complaint
as an attachment. Whether it was put in the body of the
attachment, where some of it already is, or whether it was
separated as an attachment and then incorporated by reference,
we are happy, if your Honor wishes to, include it in the body,
but it feels like it serves the same purpose.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, that would be a second
amended complaint, and I am not going to express a view with
respect to that. I am just asking my questions.

It’s probably better for Freedman to wait to see what the judge requests than to proactively make amendments in the dark. If this judge is inclined to only grant a handful of amendments, no need to rack up more than you need to before you need to.

[Anonymous]

Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

[Anonymous]

Don't know about the subpoena thing -- seems like a tricky lawyer thing but I have no idea if it is unethical or not. Lawyers have ethics rules they are required to follow as part of being members of the bar -- would filing this lawsuit to get the subpoena violate those?

Separately, I saw that Freedman et al informed the court this week that they don't intend to file a motion for leave to amend tomorrow. I know it's been discussed here but I didn't realize it was a done deal until I saw it on Reddit. Do people think Liman will punish them for it by dismissing more claims with prejudice than he might have otherwise? I know of do. They asked for more time to file, he denied, and now they are basically saying "ok well we're going to take more time anyway, thanks." That seems like the sort of thing that would piss off a judge. If they were just going to do whatever they wanted, why ask for the extension in the first place?

Also it flies in the face of Freedman's claims way back in January or February that Wayfarer was very interested in moving things along quickly because the lawsuits were so expensive and burdensome for Baldoni. I guess that logic only applies when Lively wants more time for something? Interesting.