Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP again. Exactly, and I think BF’s counter to the jury would be that to rule in Blake’s favor on retaliation regardless of the validity of the SH claims will send a dangerous message that anyone can make false accusations against a coworker and then use those accusations at every turn to both harm the coworker (removing Justin’s film credit, putting him in the basement, defaming him in the NYT) and gain special privileges for themselves (Blake’s PGA credit, Blake’s face on the poster, Blake takes over marketing events JB was supposed to do, Blake takes over editing).

He’ll ask the jury to forget about the Hollywood element and think about if this had happened in their workplace and their colleague lied on them and then used that lie to get them kicked off of projects and promote themselves. Then he’ll say imagine they then start smearing you to the public and you defend yourself only to be told there’s nothing you can do because she’s immune from consequences the moment she makes a complaint against you no matter how baseless. Most regular people would find this scenario horrifying.

[Anonymous]

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.

Love your attempts at gaslighting. It’s exactly what I thought— A Fine Indian Boy was in 41 theaters—41, compared to top blockbusters that play at 3,000+ theaters. Sinners, Revenge of Sith and other blockbusters with deep pocket distributors is a huge reason for the disparity—not because of Baldoni.

You know the rest, as I have stated it here on a few responses.

Lively supporters trying to gaslight. Fortunately I know numbers and metrics very well. Your argument is baseless on so many levels and have nothing to do with Justin’s ability to direct. Apples to oranges.

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

[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.

Love your attempts at gaslighting. It’s exactly what I thought— A Fine Indian Boy was in 41 theaters—41, compared to top blockbusters that play at 3,000+ theaters. Sinners, Revenge of Sith and other blockbusters with deep pocket distributors is a huge reason for the disparity—not because of Baldoni.

You know the rest, as I have stated it here on a few responses.

Lively supporters trying to gaslight. Fortunately I know numbers and metrics very well. Your argument is baseless on so many levels and have nothing to do with Justin’s ability to direct. Apples to oranges.

Disgusting.

Furthermore (yep, telling it like it is) the closest movie in theaters to what I would assume ASF would be comparable to is the Accountant2. But guess what—played at 3,600 theaters compared to 41 theaters. And you want to make a big ass deal about A Fine Indian Boy not being a revenue powerhouse. And then you want to attribute that to Baldoni. Get out of here and learn some Math before bringing up stupid and idiotic pretzel logic comparisons like this that are baseless.

Find another was to gaslight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

DP. It’s just one pro BL poster who occasionally claims she’s a lawyer, a litigator even, but doesn’t know about interrogatories or about MTD. She’s obsessed with Freedman.

[Anonymous]

^ she claims to be multiple posters but she’s clearly not, and she often posts multiple times agreeing with herself.

I certainly hope she’s being paid for her efforts because otherwise she’s just nuts

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

lol! You forgot the protective order, where Freedman said parties shouldn’t be able to self-designate AEO but need to come to me first with every doc and get me to agree, and the judge said, nah, and adopted most of the draft PO that Lively’s attorneys submitted. I’m more than happy to argue this out with you again over the next 50 pages. Freedman was so put out during the hearing, his emotional dismay at the thought of this PO being granted by itself shows what a win for Lively it was. Oh his poor hurt feelings!

Anyway, he lost the PO, and more importantly he lost the NYT’s motion for a stay (which he opposed).

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

lol! You forgot the protective order, where Freedman said parties shouldn’t be able to self-designate AEO but need to come to me first with every doc and get me to agree, and the judge said, nah, and adopted most of the draft PO that Lively’s attorneys submitted. I’m more than happy to argue this out with you again over the next 50 pages. Freedman was so put out during the hearing, his emotional dismay at the thought of this PO being granted by itself shows what a win for Lively it was. Oh his poor hurt feelings!

Anyway, he lost the PO, and more importantly he lost the NYT’s motion for a stay (which he opposed).

PP we’ve explained to you over and over. None of this is unusual in a long litigation, and freedman most certainly wasn’t all that ‘put out’. He’s a seasoned lawyer and knows that you win some and you lose some, and none of it matters until the end. And he gets paid either way. You need to stop your personal obsession.

Again, I hope you’re at least getting paid

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

lol! You forgot the protective order, where Freedman said parties shouldn’t be able to self-designate AEO but need to come to me first with every doc and get me to agree, and the judge said, nah, and adopted most of the draft PO that Lively’s attorneys submitted. I’m more than happy to argue this out with you again over the next 50 pages. Freedman was so put out during the hearing, his emotional dismay at the thought of this PO being granted by itself shows what a win for Lively it was. Oh his poor hurt feelings!

Anyway, he lost the PO, and more importantly he lost the NYT’s motion for a stay (which he opposed).

PP we’ve explained to you over and over. None of this is unusual in a long litigation, and freedman most certainly wasn’t all that ‘put out’. He’s a seasoned lawyer and knows that you win some and you lose some, and none of it matters until the end. And he gets paid either way. You need to stop your personal obsession.

Again, I hope you’re at least getting paid

She's literally responding to a post that claims Freedman only lost one motion by explaining, uhm no, he lost others. Then you completely move the goalposts as though she's the one who was factually wrong and keeps bringing up nonsense. It's exhausting.

[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.

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.

lol! You forgot the protective order, where Freedman said parties shouldn’t be able to self-designate AEO but need to come to me first with every doc and get me to agree, and the judge said, nah, and adopted most of the draft PO that Lively’s attorneys submitted. I’m more than happy to argue this out with you again over the next 50 pages. Freedman was so put out during the hearing, his emotional dismay at the thought of this PO being granted by itself shows what a win for Lively it was. Oh his poor hurt feelings!

Anyway, he lost the PO, and more importantly he lost the NYT’s motion for a stay (which he opposed).

PP we’ve explained to you over and over. None of this is unusual in a long litigation, and freedman most certainly wasn’t all that ‘put out’. He’s a seasoned lawyer and knows that you win some and you lose some, and none of it matters until the end. And he gets paid either way. You need to stop your personal obsession.

Again, I hope you’re at least getting paid

She's literally responding to a post that claims Freedman only lost one motion by explaining, uhm no, he lost others. Then you completely move the goalposts as though she's the one who was factually wrong and keeps bringing up nonsense. It's exhausting.

Lol ‘she’? You mean you?

You use that goalpost expression way too often. Gotta mix it up more.

And again, the point is lawyers expect to lose things along the way, it’s part of litigation and none of it matters all that much. Freedman is not ‘put out’ or angry as you keep wanting to think bc you are obsessed with him.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You're saying this is normal? What kind of litigation do you do. I have never seen an interrogatory response like this before:

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify each person You allege Leslie Sloane communicated with regarding the Wayfarer Parties.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
Responding Party incorporates by reference his general objections as if fully set forth in response to this Interrogatory. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case or relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad to the extent is seeks the identification of each person who “Vision PR, Inc. communicated with regarding [any of] the Wayfarer Parties.” Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague as to “communicated.” In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time. Responding Party states that he is willing to meet and confer with Propounding Party regarding this Interrogatory.

I don't mean the objections for disproportion, overbreath, and vagueness. That's normal. Of the 8 interrogatories submitted in the exhibit, Freedman only sort of answered ONE of them, and submitted responses similar to the above for the rest or responses that merely pointed to their initial disclosures. I am used to seeing actual attempts at responses following all of the objections -- at worst pointers to other responses, hand waving that the ROG is premature for a rare response here or there, and promises to supplement the response in the future when more is known. Even with the objections, and even when there are problems with the original request, I am used to seeing some sort of attempt to respond to the question, even if the question must be construed in a way narrow enough to be something that can be answered. What I am NOT used to seeing is a lawyer not giving any helpful response for 90% of their responses, and for three fourths of them flat out saying that they will not respond at all but you can try to meet and confer with us. These questions are not crazily overbroad. Sloane is entitled to know who Freedman thinks she communicated with regarding the matters at issue in the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You're saying this is normal? What kind of litigation do you do. I have never seen an interrogatory response like this before:

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify each person You allege Leslie Sloane communicated with regarding the Wayfarer Parties.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
Responding Party incorporates by reference his general objections as if fully set forth in response to this Interrogatory. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case or relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad to the extent is seeks the identification of each person who “Vision PR, Inc. communicated with regarding [any of] the Wayfarer Parties.” Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague as to “communicated.” In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time. Responding Party states that he is willing to meet and confer with Propounding Party regarding this Interrogatory.

I don't mean the objections for disproportion, overbreath, and vagueness. That's normal. Of the 8 interrogatories submitted in the exhibit, Freedman only sort of answered ONE of them, and submitted responses similar to the above for the rest or responses that merely pointed to their initial disclosures. I am used to seeing actual attempts at responses following all of the objections -- at worst pointers to other responses, hand waving that the ROG is premature for a rare response here or there, and promises to supplement the response in the future when more is known. Even with the objections, and even when there are problems with the original request, I am used to seeing some sort of attempt to respond to the question, even if the question must be construed in a way narrow enough to be something that can be answered. What I am NOT used to seeing is a lawyer not giving any helpful response for 90% of their responses, and for three fourths of them flat out saying that they will not respond at all but you can try to meet and confer with us. These questions are not crazily overbroad. Sloane is entitled to know who Freedman thinks she communicated with regarding the matters at issue in the complaint.

Yeah I was surprised that they didn't provide substantive responses to this question or the one requesting them to specify defamatory statements. I would have expected them to, at a minimum, point to the parts of their complaint or timeline that they allege contain these details. I was surprised they just fully refused to respond. That does seem abnormal to me.

I also disagree that interrogatories are "useless" -- they are precursors to depositions or can be used to identify potential witnesses. They are of course not as revealing as a deposition or most evidence requests, but they are procedurally valuable. It's normal of course for opposing parties to be cagey and difficult during the interrogatory process, but this was on the extreme end of that behavior IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

What sort of law do you practice if you left litigation?

I will argue that bringing this case in the first place for BL wasn’t particularly restrained or professional of Gottlieb. It’s a crap case and he hasn’t done right by his client. But he’s certainly making a boatload off of this.

It’s nice he does pro bono work and all, but that’s par for the course at big firms, they’re expected to. And he obviously chose something that would bring good PR to the firm. I don’t think his motivations were as charitable as you assume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

What sort of law do you practice if you left litigation?

I will argue that bringing this case in the first place for BL wasn’t particularly restrained or professional of Gottlieb. It’s a crap case and he hasn’t done right by his client. But he’s certainly making a boatload off of this.

It’s nice he does pro bono work and all, but that’s par for the course at big firms, they’re expected to. And he obviously chose something that would bring good PR to the firm. I don’t think his motivations were as charitable as you assume.

I think the two legal teams have very different styles. Gottlieb is very Washington DC/traditional and Freedman is Hollywood through and through. He’s witty and plays the PR game well.

I have no preference based on personality, but I have generally found Blake’s team to be more despicable. Supboenagate, while not Gottlieb’s firm but another on Blake’s team, was one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. We should all be upset that our rights could be so easily tossed aside. I’d rather a lawyer that’s loud and bombastic than one who engages in underhanded and shady tactics.