Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Neutral question, while file this recording as an audio file, why wasn't a transcript used like for a deposition or the transcripts of BF on various talk shows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neutral question, while file this recording as an audio file, why wasn't a transcript used like for a deposition or the transcripts of BF on various talk shows?

I don't know about the BF talk show transcripts (I wasn't aware they'd been filed int his case) but deposition transcripts are easy to file because depositions are attended by a court reporter who takes an official transcript. I think the process of creating a transcript of audio evidence can be a bit more complicated because you need to have it transcribed AND in a case like this where it's just an amateur recording, there may be a dispute about the transcription (some things might be garbled, there may be times when people are talking over each other, a company that uses voice recognition software can be glitchy and inaccurate).

Don't ask me what the proper procedure is because I don't actually know, but I know it's different than it is for a depo because the transcription is less straightforward than one taken by an officer of the court who is presumed to have made an accurate and true documentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s Liman’s rules on this issue. https://x.com/dontfckwjustice/status/1978268461462859802?s=61

It says that if something can’t be filed electronically, they are responsible for filing a motion seeking an alternative way to file.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neutral question, while file this recording as an audio file, why wasn't a transcript used like for a deposition or the transcripts of BF on various talk shows?

I don't know about the BF talk show transcripts (I wasn't aware they'd been filed int his case) but deposition transcripts are easy to file because depositions are attended by a court reporter who takes an official transcript. I think the process of creating a transcript of audio evidence can be a bit more complicated because you need to have it transcribed AND in a case like this where it's just an amateur recording, there may be a dispute about the transcription (some things might be garbled, there may be times when people are talking over each other, a company that uses voice recognition software can be glitchy and inaccurate).

Don't ask me what the proper procedure is because I don't actually know, but I know it's different than it is for a depo because the transcription is less straightforward than one taken by an officer of the court who is presumed to have made an accurate and true documentation.

That makes sense regarding the court reporter. With one of the sanctions motions they did include professional transcripts of BF on Megyn Kelly and others. I actually thought Lively had filed both here (the Sarowitz recording and a transcript) but maybe it was just the audio, which is annoying. This is a case where the CCs could actually come in handy if they can respectfully email chambers and get a copy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s Liman’s rules on this issue. https://x.com/dontfckwjustice/status/1978268461462859802?s=61

It says that if something can’t be filed electronically, they are responsible for filing a motion seeking an alternative way to file.

Well, we know this didn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s Liman’s rules on this issue. https://x.com/dontfckwjustice/status/1978268461462859802?s=61

It says that if something can’t be filed electronically, they are responsible for filing a motion seeking an alternative way to file.

Well, we know this didn’t happen.

Liman insisted on the pro se content creators filing motions for leave to file anonymously, though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s Liman’s rules on this issue. https://x.com/dontfckwjustice/status/1978268461462859802?s=61

It says that if something can’t be filed electronically, they are responsible for filing a motion seeking an alternative way to file.

Well, we know this didn’t happen.

Liman insisted on the pro se content creators filing motions for leave to file anonymously, though!

Yes, total shocker that Liman wouldn’t hold Blake to the rules.

[Anonymous]

Ok this time I give credit to the sleuths... they contacted the judge and he ordered the parties to figure out how to share the video and update the court by the 17th,

[Anonymous]

audio*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok this time I give credit to the sleuths... they contacted the judge and he ordered the parties to figure out how to share the video and update the court by the 17th,

🤣🤣🤣🤣 this is crazy and I love it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok this time I give credit to the sleuths... they contacted the judge and he ordered the parties to figure out how to share the video and update the court by the 17th,

His order indicates it wasn't some kind of conspiracy to hide the audio recording but just that the court's filing system would not support uploading it in any way. As someone who has worked with federal and state court filing systems extensively, this is not remotely surprising.

Anyway, he has ordered them to find a way to publicly release it. It *was* filed with the court, just not in a way that could be accessed by the public, and not the fault of the parties filing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI NotActuallyGolden (NAG) is doing a TikTok live today at 1pm with two other lawyers who post on TT, LittleGirlAttorney (LGA) and BB

LGA is a lawyer who works in CA and has experience with employment law, SH claims, etc. She’s also clerked in CA courts.

BB is a former federal court clerk and brings a lot of insight into federal court workings and how judges operate.

And all three don’t think Blake has a strong case

NAG has been so wrong over and over about this case, it should be embarrassing to her, but it's not. Remember when she posted that she was so mad that people kept misciting the facts about the Taylor Swift stuff, and she was going to give straight facts, and then she got the entire timeline wrong and had to correct herself. Fail.

She barely reads the pleadings and doesn't read the case law, so she's going off vibez most of the time. I liked her in the beginning but after she kept getting things wrong, wrong, wrong I lost faith.

+1, this was my exact journey with her.

I think early on she stayed in her lane and only commented on legal issues and procedures she had real experience with, plus she used to couch things a lot more. Like she'd explain federal procedure for something and then outline what the two parties' arguments were, but she wouldn't editorialize much.

I think as she go traction she started trying to give her audience what they wanted, which mean being more critical of Lively's case and lawyers and giving the gentlest, most favorable read to Wayfarer and their lawyers. A lot of the content creators are doing this, which is one of the reasons people were so shocked when Liman dismissed most of Wayfarer's case, even though many other lawyers (myself included) had been talking about a significant portion of those claims getting dismissed for a while, and had been trying to explain the obvious pleading problems, while people yelled at us and called us "Blake bots."

Yup. And she went further today speculating (wrongly) that the judge had never received the recording, despite the fact that the judge wrote about how it revealed the identity of the witness in a footnote in his Order. She really does not read the filings carefully and is just wrong over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI NotActuallyGolden (NAG) is doing a TikTok live today at 1pm with two other lawyers who post on TT, LittleGirlAttorney (LGA) and BB

LGA is a lawyer who works in CA and has experience with employment law, SH claims, etc. She’s also clerked in CA courts.

BB is a former federal court clerk and brings a lot of insight into federal court workings and how judges operate.

And all three don’t think Blake has a strong case

NAG has been so wrong over and over about this case, it should be embarrassing to her, but it's not. Remember when she posted that she was so mad that people kept misciting the facts about the Taylor Swift stuff, and she was going to give straight facts, and then she got the entire timeline wrong and had to correct herself. Fail.

She barely reads the pleadings and doesn't read the case law, so she's going off vibez most of the time. I liked her in the beginning but after she kept getting things wrong, wrong, wrong I lost faith.

+1, this was my exact journey with her.

I think early on she stayed in her lane and only commented on legal issues and procedures she had real experience with, plus she used to couch things a lot more. Like she'd explain federal procedure for something and then outline what the two parties' arguments were, but she wouldn't editorialize much.

I think as she go traction she started trying to give her audience what they wanted, which mean being more critical of Lively's case and lawyers and giving the gentlest, most favorable read to Wayfarer and their lawyers. A lot of the content creators are doing this, which is one of the reasons people were so shocked when Liman dismissed most of Wayfarer's case, even though many other lawyers (myself included) had been talking about a significant portion of those claims getting dismissed for a while, and had been trying to explain the obvious pleading problems, while people yelled at us and called us "Blake bots."

Yup. And she went further today speculating (wrongly) that the judge had never received the recording, despite the fact that the judge wrote about how it revealed the identity of the witness in a footnote in his Order. She really does not read the filings carefully and is just wrong over and over and over again.

Yes, exactly this. Saying the judge never received it was just her telling people who were looking for reasons to go after Lively's lawyers exactly what they wanted to hear.

I get especially annoyed when she says stuff like this because she *is* a litigator who has worked in federal court. Had Lively failed to attach the recording, which was essential for the judge to be able to rule on whether to keep it sealed or not, the clerks would have identified this deficiency immediately and alerted Lively to re-file. Certainly the judge would not have ruled on the issue without it.

Which means either she knew the tape had been filed but was just saying something she knew would please her audience, which is heavily anti-Lively, or she is just not very smart. Either way, it's stuff like this that has made me decide she isn't worth listening to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok this time I give credit to the sleuths... they contacted the judge and he ordered the parties to figure out how to share the video and update the court by the 17th,

His order indicates it wasn't some kind of conspiracy to hide the audio recording but just that the court's filing system would not support uploading it in any way. As someone who has worked with federal and state court filing systems extensively, this is not remotely surprising.

Anyway, he has ordered them to find a way to publicly release it. It *was* filed with the court, just not in a way that could be accessed by the public, and not the fault of the parties filing it.

The judge’s rules account for such a scenario, BL was required to submit a motion for alternative filing beforehand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI NotActuallyGolden (NAG) is doing a TikTok live today at 1pm with two other lawyers who post on TT, LittleGirlAttorney (LGA) and BB

LGA is a lawyer who works in CA and has experience with employment law, SH claims, etc. She’s also clerked in CA courts.

BB is a former federal court clerk and brings a lot of insight into federal court workings and how judges operate.

And all three don’t think Blake has a strong case

NAG has been so wrong over and over about this case, it should be embarrassing to her, but it's not. Remember when she posted that she was so mad that people kept misciting the facts about the Taylor Swift stuff, and she was going to give straight facts, and then she got the entire timeline wrong and had to correct herself. Fail.

She barely reads the pleadings and doesn't read the case law, so she's going off vibez most of the time. I liked her in the beginning but after she kept getting things wrong, wrong, wrong I lost faith.

+1, this was my exact journey with her.

I think early on she stayed in her lane and only commented on legal issues and procedures she had real experience with, plus she used to couch things a lot more. Like she'd explain federal procedure for something and then outline what the two parties' arguments were, but she wouldn't editorialize much.

I think as she go traction she started trying to give her audience what they wanted, which mean being more critical of Lively's case and lawyers and giving the gentlest, most favorable read to Wayfarer and their lawyers. A lot of the content creators are doing this, which is one of the reasons people were so shocked when Liman dismissed most of Wayfarer's case, even though many other lawyers (myself included) had been talking about a significant portion of those claims getting dismissed for a while, and had been trying to explain the obvious pleading problems, while people yelled at us and called us "Blake bots."

Yup. And she went further today speculating (wrongly) that the judge had never received the recording, despite the fact that the judge wrote about how it revealed the identity of the witness in a footnote in his Order. She really does not read the filings carefully and is just wrong over and over and over again.

Yes, exactly this. Saying the judge never received it was just her telling people who were looking for reasons to go after Lively's lawyers exactly what they wanted to hear.

I get especially annoyed when she says stuff like this because she *is* a litigator who has worked in federal court. Had Lively failed to attach the recording, which was essential for the judge to be able to rule on whether to keep it sealed or not, the clerks would have identified this deficiency immediately and alerted Lively to re-file. Certainly the judge would not have ruled on the issue without it.

Which means either she knew the tape had been filed but was just saying something she knew would please her audience, which is heavily anti-Lively, or she is just not very smart. Either way, it's stuff like this that has made me decide she isn't worth listening to.

Who cares, the judge knew that BL hadn’t properly filed a motion for leave to file in an alternative method and said nothing until caught by the public.