Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Imagine criticizing and downplaying the accomplishments of a film starring people of color as part of your pro-Lively vendetta. Lively supporters never beating the racism allegations, which makes sense, since they worship a woman who got married on a plantation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

A lawyer from Reddit that I have recommended here (who is generally pro-Lively but not anti-Freedman afaict) has noted that this is Bryan Freedman’s general MO. Strike hard in the press, and look to fill out facts you have alleged in your complaint from discovery — meaning that he often doesn’t have the requisite facts he would need to support his claims when he first files them, as he is actually required/expected to do. So he just may not have the information he is being asked for in the ROGs, in which case he wants as long as possible and up through July when doc discovery is expected to be substantially completed before he would want to file an amended complaint. It explains his delay. He couldn’t substantiate his own complaint and needed more time to try to collect more facts, if possible.

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. Blake’s team brought a case about a smear campaign and included evidence in their own complaint contradicting the existence of a smear campaign (the chart showing sentiment turned negative towards Lively before Jed Wallace was hired). They’re currently on a fishing expedition “hoping” to find evidence of a smear campaign in discovery.

Given that your boy Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD on the smear campaign allegations and given the texts where Baldoni’s PR reps say stuff like “you know we can bury anyone,” seems like the smear campaign allegations will survive at least for now, whereas basically all of Freedman’s claims, including his most lucrative ones against the NYT, are up for dismissal.

I agree that Lively is looking for more info re how the smear campaign worked. That’s what discovery is for. But those texts are enough to show a plan existed for such a campaign and steps were taken in furtherance of it. In other words, Livelt can substantiate the basics for a retaliation campaign, whereas Freedman cannot substantiate a defamation claim against Lively’s PR rep given the absolute lack of facts in his responses. This may help support her MTD and lend weight to granting it with prejudice, but I guess he isn’t worried about that.

Nope. You need more than ‘talk’ to substantiate a claim. Case in point-the Orangeman saying he should be the next pope. No one took him seriously because he actually has to go thru the process to become pope. He can talk about it all he wants, but nothing becomes actionable until he undergoes the steps to become the pontiff (which of course, he cannot).

So talk is cheap. Lively will need to show evidence of the smear campaign to have a valid claim. Texts and words alone do not substantiate anything.

And yet, as I already noted, Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD. So these claims are going to survive discovery and are here at least through summary judgment, which is more than we know about basically the entirety of Freedman’s current complaint riddled with group pleading problems and insufficient facts.

Let me say that again. All of Lively’s claims (except possibly those against Jed Wallace) will survive discovery because Freedman did not make the effort to move to dismiss a single one of them. Whereas basically ALL of Baldoni’s claims are up for dismissal. Lively won the chance to find more facts in discovery. Whether or not Freedman will be able to use his discovery finds, if any, will be up to the mercy of the judge. So yes, talk is cheap, let’s see if Freedman will be able to put his money where his very big mouth has been.

The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else notice that Blake’s lawyer said the retaliation is the core of the case? I honestly read that as suggesting that even her lawyers know the actual SH claims are weak. Another telling statement in Gottlieb’s interview was that he said they “expect” and “hope” to focus on the smear campaign in discovery, which to me is an admission that they don’t actually have evidence of a smear campaign.

This is almost verbatim how I interpreted as well.

Here’s my prediction on Blake’s lawyers legal strategy, especially after that people magazine interview where Gottlieb called the retaliation the core of the case. If this thing goes all the way to trial, they’re going to start pivoting away from focusing on the harassment. They’re going to tell the jury “it doesn’t matter” whether or not Blake’s claims meet the legal threshold of harassment (because they clearly don’t) and they’re going to say Blake gets protection just for making the claims regardless of the validity of the claims. If they can prove a smear campaign (which I don’t think they’ll be able to but let’s just assume for the moment) this may actually be true under the law (i.e. no retaliation for making a complaint regardless of the validity of the complaint).

The problem is juries are human and it’s going to be pretty hard to convince them to punish Justin for “retaliation” if they see the harassment claims as bogus. This legal strategy will also play into Justin’s defense and countersuit, which is that the SH claims were made in bad faith to extort the WF parties.

You heard it here first lol. Mark my words. Even though Blake’s PR strategy is all about SH and giving women a voice, in court her lawyers are going to say “look elsewhere, don’t focus on the SH”.

[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:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

A lawyer from Reddit that I have recommended here (who is generally pro-Lively but not anti-Freedman afaict) has noted that this is Bryan Freedman’s general MO. Strike hard in the press, and look to fill out facts you have alleged in your complaint from discovery — meaning that he often doesn’t have the requisite facts he would need to support his claims when he first files them, as he is actually required/expected to do. So he just may not have the information he is being asked for in the ROGs, in which case he wants as long as possible and up through July when doc discovery is expected to be substantially completed before he would want to file an amended complaint. It explains his delay. He couldn’t substantiate his own complaint and needed more time to try to collect more facts, if possible.

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. Blake’s team brought a case about a smear campaign and included evidence in their own complaint contradicting the existence of a smear campaign (the chart showing sentiment turned negative towards Lively before Jed Wallace was hired). They’re currently on a fishing expedition “hoping” to find evidence of a smear campaign in discovery.

Given that your boy Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD on the smear campaign allegations and given the texts where Baldoni’s PR reps say stuff like “you know we can bury anyone,” seems like the smear campaign allegations will survive at least for now, whereas basically all of Freedman’s claims, including his most lucrative ones against the NYT, are up for dismissal.

I agree that Lively is looking for more info re how the smear campaign worked. That’s what discovery is for. But those texts are enough to show a plan existed for such a campaign and steps were taken in furtherance of it. In other words, Livelt can substantiate the basics for a retaliation campaign, whereas Freedman cannot substantiate a defamation claim against Lively’s PR rep given the absolute lack of facts in his responses. This may help support her MTD and lend weight to granting it with prejudice, but I guess he isn’t worried about that.

Nope. You need more than ‘talk’ to substantiate a claim. Case in point-the Orangeman saying he should be the next pope. No one took him seriously because he actually has to go thru the process to become pope. He can talk about it all he wants, but nothing becomes actionable until he undergoes the steps to become the pontiff (which of course, he cannot).

So talk is cheap. Lively will need to show evidence of the smear campaign to have a valid claim. Texts and words alone do not substantiate anything.

And yet, as I already noted, Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD. So these claims are going to survive discovery and are here at least through summary judgment, which is more than we know about basically the entirety of Freedman’s current complaint riddled with group pleading problems and insufficient facts.

Let me say that again. All of Lively’s claims (except possibly those against Jed Wallace) will survive discovery because Freedman did not make the effort to move to dismiss a single one of them. Whereas basically ALL of Baldoni’s claims are up for dismissal. Lively won the chance to find more facts in discovery. Whether or not Freedman will be able to use his discovery finds, if any, will be up to the mercy of the judge. So yes, talk is cheap, let’s see if Freedman will be able to put his money where his very big mouth has been.

The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected.

Wrong. Your “at most” is actually the starting point for many of these claims due to Freedman’s group pleading problem infecting the entire amended complaint. The judge has hinted at this already and said a new amended complaint will be required, and instead of addressing these concerns Freedman has chosen to sit on his hands and whine to People magazine.

[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:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

A lawyer from Reddit that I have recommended here (who is generally pro-Lively but not anti-Freedman afaict) has noted that this is Bryan Freedman’s general MO. Strike hard in the press, and look to fill out facts you have alleged in your complaint from discovery — meaning that he often doesn’t have the requisite facts he would need to support his claims when he first files them, as he is actually required/expected to do. So he just may not have the information he is being asked for in the ROGs, in which case he wants as long as possible and up through July when doc discovery is expected to be substantially completed before he would want to file an amended complaint. It explains his delay. He couldn’t substantiate his own complaint and needed more time to try to collect more facts, if possible.

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. Blake’s team brought a case about a smear campaign and included evidence in their own complaint contradicting the existence of a smear campaign (the chart showing sentiment turned negative towards Lively before Jed Wallace was hired). They’re currently on a fishing expedition “hoping” to find evidence of a smear campaign in discovery.

Given that your boy Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD on the smear campaign allegations and given the texts where Baldoni’s PR reps say stuff like “you know we can bury anyone,” seems like the smear campaign allegations will survive at least for now, whereas basically all of Freedman’s claims, including his most lucrative ones against the NYT, are up for dismissal.

I agree that Lively is looking for more info re how the smear campaign worked. That’s what discovery is for. But those texts are enough to show a plan existed for such a campaign and steps were taken in furtherance of it. In other words, Livelt can substantiate the basics for a retaliation campaign, whereas Freedman cannot substantiate a defamation claim against Lively’s PR rep given the absolute lack of facts in his responses. This may help support her MTD and lend weight to granting it with prejudice, but I guess he isn’t worried about that.

Nope. You need more than ‘talk’ to substantiate a claim. Case in point-the Orangeman saying he should be the next pope. No one took him seriously because he actually has to go thru the process to become pope. He can talk about it all he wants, but nothing becomes actionable until he undergoes the steps to become the pontiff (which of course, he cannot).

So talk is cheap. Lively will need to show evidence of the smear campaign to have a valid claim. Texts and words alone do not substantiate anything.

And yet, as I already noted, Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD. So these claims are going to survive discovery and are here at least through summary judgment, which is more than we know about basically the entirety of Freedman’s current complaint riddled with group pleading problems and insufficient facts.

Let me say that again. All of Lively’s claims (except possibly those against Jed Wallace) will survive discovery because Freedman did not make the effort to move to dismiss a single one of them. Whereas basically ALL of Baldoni’s claims are up for dismissal. Lively won the chance to find more facts in discovery. Whether or not Freedman will be able to use his discovery finds, if any, will be up to the mercy of the judge. So yes, talk is cheap, let’s see if Freedman will be able to put his money where his very big mouth has been.

The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected.

Wrong. Your “at most” is actually the starting point for many of these claims due to Freedman’s group pleading problem infecting the entire amended complaint. The judge has hinted at this already and said a new amended complaint will be required, and instead of addressing these concerns Freedman has chosen to sit on his hands and whine to People magazine.

You’re being repetitive. If the complaint is dismissed due to group pleading, it will be without prejudice and he will refile. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone tracking how that other BL streaming movie is performing? I read some pretty bad reviews. B.ut I cannot tell if it is performing well or not

It is the top streamed movie on Amazon both in the US and globally: https://flixpatrol.com/top10/amazon-prime/world/2025-05-08/

Meanwhile A Fine Indian Boy has not made back the money expended to make it.

It’s called a nice Indian boy and it’s in a completely different league than another simple favor, which went direct to streaming and therefore has no box office numbers. What another simple favor does have is horrible reviews. A nice Indian boy on the other hand is critically acclaimed, has rave reviews across the board and is already generating awards season buzz. To put it bluntly, Blake could never. She has a lane, which is cash grab light rom coms ala Hallmark, but she is not a serious actress and she does not make serious movies. I don’t think A Nice Indian Boy was ever positioned as a big money maker. The difference between A Nice Indian Boy and Another Simple Favor is one is Art and one is a gimmick for a quick buck.

You would think that with such great reviews, it would have grossed more than it costs to buy a single family home in Arlington, but it has not.

Probably what Wayfarer should do here is send Baldoni out on for press junkets about the movie to talk about what a Very Important and Serious Subject it involves so that people will understand that it certainly won’t be any fun to watch, I bet that will help!

Baldoni did not direct this film. Nor is it part of a sequel or an adaptation of a book with a well-known author.

Niche film that probably played in a small number of theaters. Critically acclaimed and will probably be in an Oscar race or two. Revenue stream is still in progress.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

A lawyer from Reddit that I have recommended here (who is generally pro-Lively but not anti-Freedman afaict) has noted that this is Bryan Freedman’s general MO. Strike hard in the press, and look to fill out facts you have alleged in your complaint from discovery — meaning that he often doesn’t have the requisite facts he would need to support his claims when he first files them, as he is actually required/expected to do. So he just may not have the information he is being asked for in the ROGs, in which case he wants as long as possible and up through July when doc discovery is expected to be substantially completed before he would want to file an amended complaint. It explains his delay. He couldn’t substantiate his own complaint and needed more time to try to collect more facts, if possible.

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. Blake’s team brought a case about a smear campaign and included evidence in their own complaint contradicting the existence of a smear campaign (the chart showing sentiment turned negative towards Lively before Jed Wallace was hired). They’re currently on a fishing expedition “hoping” to find evidence of a smear campaign in discovery.

Given that your boy Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD on the smear campaign allegations and given the texts where Baldoni’s PR reps say stuff like “you know we can bury anyone,” seems like the smear campaign allegations will survive at least for now, whereas basically all of Freedman’s claims, including his most lucrative ones against the NYT, are up for dismissal.

I agree that Lively is looking for more info re how the smear campaign worked. That’s what discovery is for. But those texts are enough to show a plan existed for such a campaign and steps were taken in furtherance of it. In other words, Livelt can substantiate the basics for a retaliation campaign, whereas Freedman cannot substantiate a defamation claim against Lively’s PR rep given the absolute lack of facts in his responses. This may help support her MTD and lend weight to granting it with prejudice, but I guess he isn’t worried about that.

Nope. You need more than ‘talk’ to substantiate a claim. Case in point-the Orangeman saying he should be the next pope. No one took him seriously because he actually has to go thru the process to become pope. He can talk about it all he wants, but nothing becomes actionable until he undergoes the steps to become the pontiff (which of course, he cannot).

So talk is cheap. Lively will need to show evidence of the smear campaign to have a valid claim. Texts and words alone do not substantiate anything.

And yet, as I already noted, Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD. So these claims are going to survive discovery and are here at least through summary judgment, which is more than we know about basically the entirety of Freedman’s current complaint riddled with group pleading problems and insufficient facts.

Let me say that again. All of Lively’s claims (except possibly those against Jed Wallace) will survive discovery because Freedman did not make the effort to move to dismiss a single one of them. Whereas basically ALL of Baldoni’s claims are up for dismissal. Lively won the chance to find more facts in discovery. Whether or not Freedman will be able to use his discovery finds, if any, will be up to the mercy of the judge. So yes, talk is cheap, let’s see if Freedman will be able to put his money where his very big mouth has been.

The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected.

Wrong. Your “at most” is actually the starting point for many of these claims due to Freedman’s group pleading problem infecting the entire amended complaint. The judge has hinted at this already and said a new amended complaint will be required, and instead of addressing these concerns Freedman has chosen to sit on his hands and whine to People magazine.

You’re being repetitive. If the complaint is dismissed due to group pleading, it will be without prejudice and he will refile. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

DP there many good arguments in the MTDs besides group pleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else notice that Blake’s lawyer said the retaliation is the core of the case? I honestly read that as suggesting that even her lawyers know the actual SH claims are weak. Another telling statement in Gottlieb’s interview was that he said they “expect” and “hope” to focus on the smear campaign in discovery, which to me is an admission that they don’t actually have evidence of a smear campaign.

This is almost verbatim how I interpreted as well.

Here’s my prediction on Blake’s lawyers legal strategy, especially after that people magazine interview where Gottlieb called the retaliation the core of the case. If this thing goes all the way to trial, they’re going to start pivoting away from focusing on the harassment. They’re going to tell the jury “it doesn’t matter” whether or not Blake’s claims meet the legal threshold of harassment (because they clearly don’t) and they’re going to say Blake gets protection just for making the claims regardless of the validity of the claims. If they can prove a smear campaign (which I don’t think they’ll be able to but let’s just assume for the moment) this may actually be true under the law (i.e. no retaliation for making a complaint regardless of the validity of the complaint).

The problem is juries are human and it’s going to be pretty hard to convince them to punish Justin for “retaliation” if they see the harassment claims as bogus. This legal strategy will also play into Justin’s defense and countersuit, which is that the SH claims were made in bad faith to extort the WF parties.

You heard it here first lol. Mark my words. Even though Blake’s PR strategy is all about SH and giving women a voice, in court her lawyers are going to say “look elsewhere, don’t focus on the SH”.

Good analysis.

This has always been what makes this case so interesting. Blake has a pretty good argument on the law, if you accept the complaint as true, but she doesn't seem to have the facts to back up the complaint and could be ripped apart at trial. Baldoni's issues are more with the legal arguments but he has strong factual arguments.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

A lawyer from Reddit that I have recommended here (who is generally pro-Lively but not anti-Freedman afaict) has noted that this is Bryan Freedman’s general MO. Strike hard in the press, and look to fill out facts you have alleged in your complaint from discovery — meaning that he often doesn’t have the requisite facts he would need to support his claims when he first files them, as he is actually required/expected to do. So he just may not have the information he is being asked for in the ROGs, in which case he wants as long as possible and up through July when doc discovery is expected to be substantially completed before he would want to file an amended complaint. It explains his delay. He couldn’t substantiate his own complaint and needed more time to try to collect more facts, if possible.

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. Blake’s team brought a case about a smear campaign and included evidence in their own complaint contradicting the existence of a smear campaign (the chart showing sentiment turned negative towards Lively before Jed Wallace was hired). They’re currently on a fishing expedition “hoping” to find evidence of a smear campaign in discovery.

Given that your boy Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD on the smear campaign allegations and given the texts where Baldoni’s PR reps say stuff like “you know we can bury anyone,” seems like the smear campaign allegations will survive at least for now, whereas basically all of Freedman’s claims, including his most lucrative ones against the NYT, are up for dismissal.

I agree that Lively is looking for more info re how the smear campaign worked. That’s what discovery is for. But those texts are enough to show a plan existed for such a campaign and steps were taken in furtherance of it. In other words, Livelt can substantiate the basics for a retaliation campaign, whereas Freedman cannot substantiate a defamation claim against Lively’s PR rep given the absolute lack of facts in his responses. This may help support her MTD and lend weight to granting it with prejudice, but I guess he isn’t worried about that.

Nope. You need more than ‘talk’ to substantiate a claim. Case in point-the Orangeman saying he should be the next pope. No one took him seriously because he actually has to go thru the process to become pope. He can talk about it all he wants, but nothing becomes actionable until he undergoes the steps to become the pontiff (which of course, he cannot).

So talk is cheap. Lively will need to show evidence of the smear campaign to have a valid claim. Texts and words alone do not substantiate anything.

And yet, as I already noted, Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD. So these claims are going to survive discovery and are here at least through summary judgment, which is more than we know about basically the entirety of Freedman’s current complaint riddled with group pleading problems and insufficient facts.

Let me say that again. All of Lively’s claims (except possibly those against Jed Wallace) will survive discovery because Freedman did not make the effort to move to dismiss a single one of them. Whereas basically ALL of Baldoni’s claims are up for dismissal. Lively won the chance to find more facts in discovery. Whether or not Freedman will be able to use his discovery finds, if any, will be up to the mercy of the judge. So yes, talk is cheap, let’s see if Freedman will be able to put his money where his very big mouth has been.

The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected.

Wrong. Your “at most” is actually the starting point for many of these claims due to Freedman’s group pleading problem infecting the entire amended complaint. The judge has hinted at this already and said a new amended complaint will be required, and instead of addressing these concerns Freedman has chosen to sit on his hands and whine to People magazine.

You’re being repetitive. If the complaint is dismissed due to group pleading, it will be without prejudice and he will refile. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Let me help you understand. PP said: “ The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected.”

What I am saying is that your “at best” scenario for most of these claims is actually where Liman will start with many because the group pleading problem will already require the MTD to be granted. Freedman has not and will not amend his complaint before the MTDs are granted and the group pleading will require dismissal for many of these claims as written. That’s what you say the worst thing that will happen is but that’s already where we are starting for many of these. Dismissal with prejudice is the *real* worst thing, which you don’t expect for any claim. Really??? Do you really think none of Freedman’s claims will be dismissed with prejudice? Team Baldoni is living in a dream world, as is apparent from some of their other posts in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

Yes, I think there's a chance that Freedman gets his hands slapped by the judge for the interrogatory answers, which are clearly intentionally useless. I think the pro-Baldoni folks are really not concentrating on how bad his legal posture is at this point. What you say in the press does not actually matter. His actual legal filings are a complete mess and he's really baiting a judge that's already reacted badly to his antics.

[Anonymous]

DP, Because we must repeat everything two thousand times on this thread, motions to dismiss with prejudice are rarely granted because the judge is required to assume everything in the complaint is true. This judge is a bit of a maverick but thus far has seemingly telegraphed that the NYTimes is the only party that may be getting out of this at the MTD stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

Yes, I think there's a chance that Freedman gets his hands slapped by the judge for the interrogatory answers, which are clearly intentionally useless. I think the pro-Baldoni folks are really not concentrating on how bad his legal posture is at this point. What you say in the press does not actually matter. His actual legal filings are a complete mess and he's really baiting a judge that's already reacted badly to his antics.

They actually are fairly typical of interrogatory responses which is why interrogatories are so useless generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear.

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?” Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not.

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.

Yes, I think there's a chance that Freedman gets his hands slapped by the judge for the interrogatory answers, which are clearly intentionally useless. I think the pro-Baldoni folks are really not concentrating on how bad his legal posture is at this point. What you say in the press does not actually matter. His actual legal filings are a complete mess and he's really baiting a judge that's already reacted badly to his antics.

This far, the only motion that Baldoni “lost” is the motion for an extension, the judge has ruled against Blake more frequently, with the most substantive loss being the overbroad subpoena.

[Anonymous]

If the complaints is dismissed without prejudice as to any or several of the MTDs, it's actually not clear how much of a win this will be for Baldoni.

In order to replead and solve the group pleading issue, the complaint will have to be totally reconceived. It seems Freedman is looking for the judge to indicate how best to resolve the group pleading issue and get a sense for what structure and arguments will work best. But unclear if Liman will offer that. Some of Baldoni's arguments, especially against Sloane and Reynolds, fall apart if you eliminate group pleading -- they just don't have facts to back up with is alleged against those defendants. There is also a group pleading issue between Lively and the NYT, where defamation is alleged against both parties as a group, but once you pull them apart and apply potential defenses, it becomes harder -- Lively cannot be held liable for the way the NYT reported on her case, and the NYT cannot be held liable for the way Lively phrased things in her complaint, and if you separate them and apply standard defamation defenses to each, there might not be much left.

Saying "oh they can just replead and solve the group pleading issue" without specifying HOW they do that while retaining the guts of their complaint, glosses over a lot. It's not so simple. In some ways it may be better for Freedman if some portion is dismissed with prejudice, which might solve some of the group pleading automatically, plus it gives him a PR angle (that the judge is being unfair and not even letting them plead their case) even if the ruling is fair and based on the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the complaints is dismissed without prejudice as to any or several of the MTDs, it's actually not clear how much of a win this will be for Baldoni.

In order to replead and solve the group pleading issue, the complaint will have to be totally reconceived. It seems Freedman is looking for the judge to indicate how best to resolve the group pleading issue and get a sense for what structure and arguments will work best. But unclear if Liman will offer that. Some of Baldoni's arguments, especially against Sloane and Reynolds, fall apart if you eliminate group pleading -- they just don't have facts to back up with is alleged against those defendants. There is also a group pleading issue between Lively and the NYT, where defamation is alleged against both parties as a group, but once you pull them apart and apply potential defenses, it becomes harder -- Lively cannot be held liable for the way the NYT reported on her case, and the NYT cannot be held liable for the way Lively phrased things in her complaint, and if you separate them and apply standard defamation defenses to each, there might not be much left.

Saying "oh they can just replead and solve the group pleading issue" without specifying HOW they do that while retaining the guts of their complaint, glosses over a lot. It's not so simple. In some ways it may be better for Freedman if some portion is dismissed with prejudice, which might solve some of the group pleading automatically, plus it gives him a PR angle (that the judge is being unfair and not even letting them plead their case) even if the ruling is fair and based on the law.

My guess is that they don’t particularly care about the defendants other than Blake.