Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

Just wondering if PP is this poster above, who gives off a similar scornful attitude about their “superior” litigation knowledge and yet in the end for all their confident braggadocio was totally wrong. On this board there is almost an inverse relationship between confidence and correctness ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

Look, you don’t know defamation law that well. Fine. Fair report is not as broad of a defense as you think here. They werent just straight reporting from a lawsuit. They brought in a much fuller angle and it was clearly collaborative. And I never said ‘full context’ was some written standard in the law. But if you followed Def cases that go to trial, you’d know that context very much comes into play. Juries are human beings and subject to bias and impressions, and jury instructions- which often confuse jurists btw- don’t fully change that human inclination.

Agree juries can do weird things but will Baldoni get there?

I think he might. I think the judge will reduce the suit a fair amount, but might let some issues go to a jury. As reminder, Palin was sent to a jury- twice. And that was very clearly and obviously some loose language (and a mistake) in an Op Ed that was quickly acknowledged and corrected. This was a hit piece. It doesn’t even really make sense that the NYT would be covering this silly B/C list actor lawsuit except they wanted to make it into another Hollywood #metoo piece. And yes, if it gets to a jury, context will matter. The NYT typical standards for reporting will become an issue, etc.

If it goes to a jury, the jury instructions will include a rubric that defines actual malice as either reporting known falsehoods or having reckless disregard for the truth.

Could the jury decide the NYT had reckless disregard for the truth? Sure. But the jury will not be asked the question "did the NYT provide full context in reporting this story?" Because that's not the standard.

Also, if the context thing comes up in trial, you can expect the NYT to present evidence showing that it's not really possible to provide "full context" in a single story. Had they not been sued by Baldoni, they could have reported out additional context as it came to light. News agencies are not required to wait until they have all context before they report out news. And the NYT will make sure the jury knows that, perhaps even down to including that as a parameter in jury instructions. The defamation standard is NOT about providing full context to every story and making sure it is being seen from all angles. It's much more limited to the truth of what is reported, and a jury will only be asked to find if what the NYT reported was (1) untrue, or (2) reckless in its approach to the truth. It's a tough standard and yes a judge will throw out a jury finding if it doesn't comport with the actual law.

Of course the jury won’t be instructed on ‘full context’ - I never said that- but any good trial lawyer will remind them again and again of how their reporting fell short of their typical journalistic standards (which are very thorough and will be discussed), how Baldoni was harmed and all the other reasons people think Blake was obviously not acting in good faith (which a credible journalist should have been able to untease) etc and it will factor into how the jury views ‘reckless disregard’. It just works that way whatever the ‘technical’ law says. They’ll also likely know that the NYT has insurance coverage. And a judge will be unlikely to set aside a jury verdict if it is remotely credible.

Look, you obviously don’t know this area very well. I appreciate you know defamation law 101, but you clearly don’t know the subtler nuances of how these cases tend to play out. There’s no point in arguing further bc you’ll just keep pointing to your defamation law primer.

Bookmarking for later. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

Look, you don’t know defamation law that well. Fine. Fair report is not as broad of a defense as you think here. They werent just straight reporting from a lawsuit. They brought in a much fuller angle and it was clearly collaborative. And I never said ‘full context’ was some written standard in the law. But if you followed Def cases that go to trial, you’d know that context very much comes into play. Juries are human beings and subject to bias and impressions, and jury instructions- which often confuse jurists btw- don’t fully change that human inclination.

Agree juries can do weird things but will Baldoni get there?

I think he might. I think the judge will reduce the suit a fair amount, but might let some issues go to a jury. As reminder, Palin was sent to a jury- twice. And that was very clearly and obviously some loose language (and a mistake) in an Op Ed that was quickly acknowledged and corrected. This was a hit piece. It doesn’t even really make sense that the NYT would be covering this silly B/C list actor lawsuit except they wanted to make it into another Hollywood #metoo piece. And yes, if it gets to a jury, context will matter. The NYT typical standards for reporting will become an issue, etc.

If it goes to a jury, the jury instructions will include a rubric that defines actual malice as either reporting known falsehoods or having reckless disregard for the truth.

Could the jury decide the NYT had reckless disregard for the truth? Sure. But the jury will not be asked the question "did the NYT provide full context in reporting this story?" Because that's not the standard.

Also, if the context thing comes up in trial, you can expect the NYT to present evidence showing that it's not really possible to provide "full context" in a single story. Had they not been sued by Baldoni, they could have reported out additional context as it came to light. News agencies are not required to wait until they have all context before they report out news. And the NYT will make sure the jury knows that, perhaps even down to including that as a parameter in jury instructions. The defamation standard is NOT about providing full context to every story and making sure it is being seen from all angles. It's much more limited to the truth of what is reported, and a jury will only be asked to find if what the NYT reported was (1) untrue, or (2) reckless in its approach to the truth. It's a tough standard and yes a judge will throw out a jury finding if it doesn't comport with the actual law.

Of course the jury won’t be instructed on ‘full context’ - I never said that- but any good trial lawyer will remind them again and again of how their reporting fell short of their typical journalistic standards (which are very thorough and will be discussed), how Baldoni was harmed and all the other reasons people think Blake was obviously not acting in good faith (which a credible journalist should have been able to untease) etc and it will factor into how the jury views ‘reckless disregard’. It just works that way whatever the ‘technical’ law says. They’ll also likely know that the NYT has insurance coverage. And a judge will be unlikely to set aside a jury verdict if it is remotely credible.

Look, you obviously don’t know this area very well. I appreciate you know defamation law 101, but you clearly don’t know the subtler nuances of how these cases tend to play out. There’s no point in arguing further bc you’ll just keep pointing to your defamation law primer.

Bookmarking for later. 😂

Feel free to book mark. You can add it to your protective order obsession. Litigation is highly unpredictable, no one is saying it isn’t, but there are some very interesting issues at play, and it’s not nearly an open and shut case for any of the parties here. That’s probably why a number of lawyers on here are following this case.

I am not obsessed with Blake Lively like you are, or Justin. I merely find the issues interesting.

[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.

Just wondering if PP is this poster above, who gives off a similar scornful attitude about their “superior” litigation knowledge and yet in the end for all their confident braggadocio was totally wrong. On this board there is almost an inverse relationship between confidence and correctness ha.

And for the record, this wasn’t me. I’m not following all the cases that closely. But if this is about a judge denying an extension request from ‘team baldoni’ as you call them, your ‘win’ isn’t really of any consequence. Similar to the protective order issue. It is one tiny piece of a very long litigation slog ahead. And Bryan freedman certainly isn’t really ‘upset’ as you keep claiming, about any of these relatively minor procedural decisions. This is all par for the course, and he gets paid either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

Look, you don’t know defamation law that well. Fine. Fair report is not as broad of a defense as you think here. They werent just straight reporting from a lawsuit. They brought in a much fuller angle and it was clearly collaborative. And I never said ‘full context’ was some written standard in the law. But if you followed Def cases that go to trial, you’d know that context very much comes into play. Juries are human beings and subject to bias and impressions, and jury instructions- which often confuse jurists btw- don’t fully change that human inclination.

Agree juries can do weird things but will Baldoni get there?

I think he might. I think the judge will reduce the suit a fair amount, but might let some issues go to a jury. As reminder, Palin was sent to a jury- twice. And that was very clearly and obviously some loose language (and a mistake) in an Op Ed that was quickly acknowledged and corrected. This was a hit piece. It doesn’t even really make sense that the NYT would be covering this silly B/C list actor lawsuit except they wanted to make it into another Hollywood #metoo piece. And yes, if it gets to a jury, context will matter. The NYT typical standards for reporting will become an issue, etc.

If it goes to a jury, the jury instructions will include a rubric that defines actual malice as either reporting known falsehoods or having reckless disregard for the truth.

Could the jury decide the NYT had reckless disregard for the truth? Sure. But the jury will not be asked the question "did the NYT provide full context in reporting this story?" Because that's not the standard.

Also, if the context thing comes up in trial, you can expect the NYT to present evidence showing that it's not really possible to provide "full context" in a single story. Had they not been sued by Baldoni, they could have reported out additional context as it came to light. News agencies are not required to wait until they have all context before they report out news. And the NYT will make sure the jury knows that, perhaps even down to including that as a parameter in jury instructions. The defamation standard is NOT about providing full context to every story and making sure it is being seen from all angles. It's much more limited to the truth of what is reported, and a jury will only be asked to find if what the NYT reported was (1) untrue, or (2) reckless in its approach to the truth. It's a tough standard and yes a judge will throw out a jury finding if it doesn't comport with the actual law.

Of course the jury won’t be instructed on ‘full context’ - I never said that- but any good trial lawyer will remind them again and again of how their reporting fell short of their typical journalistic standards (which are very thorough and will be discussed), how Baldoni was harmed and all the other reasons people think Blake was obviously not acting in good faith (which a credible journalist should have been able to untease) etc and it will factor into how the jury views ‘reckless disregard’. It just works that way whatever the ‘technical’ law says. They’ll also likely know that the NYT has insurance coverage. And a judge will be unlikely to set aside a jury verdict if it is remotely credible.

Look, you obviously don’t know this area very well. I appreciate you know defamation law 101, but you clearly don’t know the subtler nuances of how these cases tend to play out. There’s no point in arguing further bc you’ll just keep pointing to your defamation law primer.

Bookmarking for later. 😂

Feel free to book mark. You can add it to your protective order obsession. Litigation is highly unpredictable, no one is saying it isn’t, but there are some very interesting issues at play, and it’s not nearly an open and shut case for any of the parties here. That’s probably why a number of lawyers on here are following this case.

I am not obsessed with Blake Lively like you are, or Justin. I merely find the issues interesting.

I’m a PP but not the bookmarking PP (but the one who noticed you sounded similar to the poster who got the extension wrong).

I fully understand litigation involves a lot of unknowns, believe me. Thats why when I’m not completely confident about how something will go, I don’t inject scorn at people who have a different opinion than me. You are repeatedly wrong about things but you still have your arrogance turned up to 11. Consider adjusting your settings.

[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.

Just wondering if PP is this poster above, who gives off a similar scornful attitude about their “superior” litigation knowledge and yet in the end for all their confident braggadocio was totally wrong. On this board there is almost an inverse relationship between confidence and correctness ha.

And this is why we think you are crazy.

[Anonymous]

For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

[Anonymous]

Blake and Ryan went to the times gala

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

Look, you don’t know defamation law that well. Fine. Fair report is not as broad of a defense as you think here. They werent just straight reporting from a lawsuit. They brought in a much fuller angle and it was clearly collaborative. And I never said ‘full context’ was some written standard in the law. But if you followed Def cases that go to trial, you’d know that context very much comes into play. Juries are human beings and subject to bias and impressions, and jury instructions- which often confuse jurists btw- don’t fully change that human inclination.

Agree juries can do weird things but will Baldoni get there?

I think he might. I think the judge will reduce the suit a fair amount, but might let some issues go to a jury. As reminder, Palin was sent to a jury- twice. And that was very clearly and obviously some loose language (and a mistake) in an Op Ed that was quickly acknowledged and corrected. This was a hit piece. It doesn’t even really make sense that the NYT would be covering this silly B/C list actor lawsuit except they wanted to make it into another Hollywood #metoo piece. And yes, if it gets to a jury, context will matter. The NYT typical standards for reporting will become an issue, etc.

If it goes to a jury, the jury instructions will include a rubric that defines actual malice as either reporting known falsehoods or having reckless disregard for the truth.

Could the jury decide the NYT had reckless disregard for the truth? Sure. But the jury will not be asked the question "did the NYT provide full context in reporting this story?" Because that's not the standard.

Also, if the context thing comes up in trial, you can expect the NYT to present evidence showing that it's not really possible to provide "full context" in a single story. Had they not been sued by Baldoni, they could have reported out additional context as it came to light. News agencies are not required to wait until they have all context before they report out news. And the NYT will make sure the jury knows that, perhaps even down to including that as a parameter in jury instructions. The defamation standard is NOT about providing full context to every story and making sure it is being seen from all angles. It's much more limited to the truth of what is reported, and a jury will only be asked to find if what the NYT reported was (1) untrue, or (2) reckless in its approach to the truth. It's a tough standard and yes a judge will throw out a jury finding if it doesn't comport with the actual law.

Of course the jury won’t be instructed on ‘full context’ - I never said that- but any good trial lawyer will remind them again and again of how their reporting fell short of their typical journalistic standards (which are very thorough and will be discussed), how Baldoni was harmed and all the other reasons people think Blake was obviously not acting in good faith (which a credible journalist should have been able to untease) etc and it will factor into how the jury views ‘reckless disregard’. It just works that way whatever the ‘technical’ law says. They’ll also likely know that the NYT has insurance coverage. And a judge will be unlikely to set aside a jury verdict if it is remotely credible.

Look, you obviously don’t know this area very well. I appreciate you know defamation law 101, but you clearly don’t know the subtler nuances of how these cases tend to play out. There’s no point in arguing further bc you’ll just keep pointing to your defamation law primer.

Bookmarking for later. 😂

Feel free to book mark. You can add it to your protective order obsession. Litigation is highly unpredictable, no one is saying it isn’t, but there are some very interesting issues at play, and it’s not nearly an open and shut case for any of the parties here. That’s probably why a number of lawyers on here are following this case.

I am not obsessed with Blake Lively like you are, or Justin. I merely find the issues interesting.

I’m a PP but not the bookmarking PP (but the one who noticed you sounded similar to the poster who got the extension wrong).

I fully understand litigation involves a lot of unknowns, believe me. Thats why when I’m not completely confident about how something will go, I don’t inject scorn at people who have a different opinion than me. You are repeatedly wrong about things but you still have your arrogance turned up to 11. Consider adjusting your settings.

I’m pretty sure you’re the bookmarking poster, but whatever. But I am not the one who has made predictions on here, other than my stance that the NYT case may survive the MTD and I think NYT has risk of it gets to a jury. That is the only case that interests me.

I’ve made no other predictions, but have watched your obsessive hatred of Freedman and ‘team baldoni’ and gleeful excitement over minor matters like the protective orders, etc… and I find it kinda nuts.

[Anonymous]

New docs on the Abel v Jones lawsuit
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

Amen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan went to the times gala

She's in pink! Maybe she read all the Barbie posts earlier.

https://pagesix.com/2025/04/24/style/blake-lively-rocks-strapless-gown-for-date-night-with-ryan-reynolds-at-time100-gala/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

I’ve seen extension requests denied in contentious litigation when opposed by the other side. Haven’t you, or am I actually a more experienced litigator than you, lol?

Looking back, what’s especially funny is that when Liman denied Lively’s extension request that Freedman consented to, team Baldoni took that as a particular slight against Lively and read it as a sign that Freedman was making headway with Liman, though he wasn’t. Looking above, you still read it that way instead of seeing Liman as just enforcing his good cause standard religiously. The Baldoni extension denial shouldn’t have been a surprise and shouldn’t have been something to feel cocky about given that earlier denial, but the excessive distain for Lively some of you feel gets in the way of your judgment.

And to the PP who is confident I was the bookmarker, I was not, so you’ve been arrogant about something you’re wrong about twice in as many pages. But please go off about how much smarter than us you are etc.

Fwiw, it’s certainly not inconceivable to me that NYT remains as a party after the MTDs (though I think it’s more likely they will be dismissed and that the judge has telegraphed this somewhat by granting the stay). I mean, I think they will be dismissed, lost likely with prejudice. But I don’t think you’re bananas. However, you were certainly rude to PP, who was just trying to have a conversation with you, and that your cockiness is strange given your rate of error ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New docs on the Abel v Jones lawsuit
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

So, skimming through Abel's amended answer (docket #50) she is using the subpoena and sham lawsuit to sue Jones for all kinds of computer related crimes (including the Federal Wiretapping Act), claiming Jones released the entirety of her phone to Lively without authorization. I would think most of these claims fail because it's a work phone, but would be interested to hear from tech lawyers. The hardware was obviously owned by Jones, but perhaps Abel has a point about the cloud. Abel claims a "possessory interest" in the phone #.

And, I'm sorry, but I'm laughing at the part where Abel claims she was "duped" into giving up her passcode to Jones along with the phone (!!!). This literally all could have been avoided.

This part is interesting especially the claim they monitored her after the fact:
: Jones and Jonesworks have used the illicitly obtained contents of these electronic communications to, inter alia, (1) monitor Abel’s activities after her termination from Jonesworks;
(2) spy on her conversations with third parties, including Wayfarer and Baldoni; (3) interfere with
Abel’s nascent small business and gain a competitive advantage in relation thereto; (4) harm
Abel’s career and reputation; (5) cause Abel mental and emotional distress; and (6) share them
with hostile third parties, including Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and their affiliated entities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

I’ve seen extension requests denied in contentious litigation when opposed by the other side. Haven’t you, or am I actually a more experienced litigator than you, lol?

Looking back, what’s especially funny is that when Liman denied Lively’s extension request that Freedman consented to, team Baldoni took that as a particular slight against Lively and read it as a sign that Freedman was making headway with Liman, though he wasn’t. Looking above, you still read it that way instead of seeing Liman as just enforcing his good cause standard religiously. The Baldoni extension denial shouldn’t have been a surprise and shouldn’t have been something to feel cocky about given that earlier denial, but the excessive distain for Lively some of you feel gets in the way of your judgment.

And to the PP who is confident I was the bookmarker, I was not, so you’ve been arrogant about something you’re wrong about twice in as many pages. But please go off about how much smarter than us you are etc.

Fwiw, it’s certainly not inconceivable to me that NYT remains as a party after the MTDs (though I think it’s more likely they will be dismissed and that the judge has telegraphed this somewhat by granting the stay). I mean, I think they will be dismissed, lost likely with prejudice. But I don’t think you’re bananas. However, you were certainly rude to PP, who was just trying to have a conversation with you, and that your cockiness is strange given your rate of error ha.

Sigh. Right right. You’re a new poster. You know we see you, right? Your obsessiveness is very telling.