Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[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.

Agree here, NAG’s assessment was just wrong-o. And did you catch the part about the whole recording being hearsay even though it’s a recording of a a party, lol? Girl, are you all right? Tap your nails on the table two times and flip your hair once if the WF parties have kidnapped you and are forcing you to say these crazy things!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bumping, weird how someone wants to keep talking about third parties and not Blake, Liman, and yet another example of him refusing to make her follow the same rules as everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bumping, weird how someone wants to keep talking about third parties and not Blake, Liman, and yet another example of him refusing to make her follow the same rules as everyone else.

Weird, the judge’s order says nothing about this, just that the recording can’t be filed through EFS so asks the parties to come up with a plan for public dissemination. If the parties had misunderstood some normal procedure, the judge would have just required enforcement of that.

Meanwhile over on Reddit, Baldoni fans are going nuts saying the judge never saw the order, that Hudson is a liar who failed to file the doc with EFS (she cannot), that she failed to file with the main clerk’s office (only pro se applicants are allowed to do that) and that she never filed the recording with the court (which is incorrect, because she filed it with Liman). It’s stupidity central over there since all the lawyers got kicked off the larger sub and the main crowd is just “Lively evil! Burn her!”

[Anonymous]

PP is referring to Liman's individual practices, not a specific order. I think maybe Lively didn't seek leave to file the audio because they just assumed asking to seal was good enough, which is sloppy. I don't think there was any big plot here but perhaps arrogance that of course their motion to seal should be granted so no worry about filing it for public view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bumping, weird how someone wants to keep talking about third parties and not Blake, Liman, and yet another example of him refusing to make her follow the same rules as everyone else.

Weird, the judge’s order says nothing about this, just that the recording can’t be filed through EFS so asks the parties to come up with a plan for public dissemination. If the parties had misunderstood some normal procedure, the judge would have just required enforcement of that.

Meanwhile over on Reddit, Baldoni fans are going nuts saying the judge never saw the order, that Hudson is a liar who failed to file the doc with EFS (she cannot), that she failed to file with the main clerk’s office (only pro se applicants are allowed to do that) and that she never filed the recording with the court (which is incorrect, because she filed it with Liman). It’s stupidity central over there since all the lawyers got kicked off the larger sub and the main crowd is just “Lively evil! Burn her!”

Always an excuse and an attempt to distract.

If Lively had filed the proper motion, everyone would know what was filed where and this whole fiasco would not have occurred. Rules exist for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Pro-Lively side is always focused on rules and formalities because they know the evidence is not in their favor.

This question of "Did Blakey file things the right way or not" is so annoying. The real question is: "Do we think Blake had something to hide?"

[Anonymous]

I do not think Lively has anything to hide from that audio, no. Do I think they cherrypicked the stuff that was the worst for SS, and omitted some context that might make his statements more understandable? Yes, probably, but if there was anything really bad for her they wouldn't have filed it. This was a completely optional submission by them, as part of an optional motion and I don't even think there was any deadline to file this one. It's not like this was even evidence she needed to defend herself against something. It was totally in her control, Ayoub wasn't involved in the movie or would have ever been considered relevant, they never had to bring this up at all if it hurt Lively's case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not think Lively has anything to hide from that audio, no. Do I think they cherrypicked the stuff that was the worst for SS, and omitted some context that might make his statements more understandable? Yes, probably, but if there was anything really bad for her they wouldn't have filed it. This was a completely optional submission by them, as part of an optional motion and I don't even think there was any deadline to file this one. It's not like this was even evidence she needed to defend herself against something. It was totally in her control, Ayoub wasn't involved in the movie or would have ever been considered relevant, they never had to bring this up at all if it hurt Lively's case.

Holding off on a full response to see what is released. If, and this an if, don’t come yelling if it doesn’t happen, the declaration is misleading because of what is omitted or lack of context, it will be “bad” for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think Lively has anything to hide from that audio, no. Do I think they cherrypicked the stuff that was the worst for SS, and omitted some context that might make his statements more understandable? Yes, probably, but if there was anything really bad for her they wouldn't have filed it. This was a completely optional submission by them, as part of an optional motion and I don't even think there was any deadline to file this one. It's not like this was even evidence she needed to defend herself against something. It was totally in her control, Ayoub wasn't involved in the movie or would have ever been considered relevant, they never had to bring this up at all if it hurt Lively's case.

Holding off on a full response to see what is released. If, and this an if, don’t come yelling if it doesn’t happen, the declaration is misleading because of what is omitted or lack of context, it will be “bad” for Blake.

PP, I'm not the poster who brags she was right, so no worries, lol. You (I assume) just kept saying it was all a distraction from what's on the tape, so I gave my honest opinion on the tape, and we'll see. It will be fun to see what sparked Sarowitz outburst.

[Anonymous]

Meh... the joint letter was posted. Their solution is to send a CD of the audio to the clerk's office, so we won't be hearing it for a while yet.

[Anonymous]

Yikes, apparently there's a sub where a group of lawyers were trying to doxx NAG:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1oadkp8/comment/nk9v6z9/

And yet people on subs like fauxmoi and popculture have the perception that the pro-Baldoni folks are the crazies

[Anonymous]

Thanks, I was wondering what doxxing incident they kept referring to.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the audio link. https://docketupdates.com/1240-2/

Doesn’t appear that the stated reason in declaration is correct as only praise of Justin and no request to leave him iout of marketing, complaints of verbal abuse etc

He does say comment about 2 bodies in connection with”protecting studio” but clarifies, not dead dead , but dead to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the audio link. https://docketupdates.com/1240-2/

Doesn’t appear that the stated reason in declaration is correct as only praise of Justin and no request to leave him iout of marketing, complaints of verbal abuse etc

He does say comment about 2 bodies in connection with”protecting studio” but clarifies, not dead dead , but dead to him.

And here’s the transcript! Remember this was filed by Blake in support of 47.1 treble and punitive damages.

https://docketupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/25-10-20_ClaireAyoubRecordingTranscript.pdf

[Anonymous]

I can’t figure out why Claire recorded this call since no real discussion of the marketing of her movie as she claimed. Either she just records all her work related calls or it was an attempted set up.