Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And sorry, should’ve said I’m not PP.

[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.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

[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.

Agree to disagree on the case -- I don't think Lively's case is a slam dunk but I think it's interesting and has a shot at being successful. I don't think it's a frivolous suit and I think it's been well conducted thus far.

I don't practice law anymore but work in a law-adjacent field.

Not all lawyers at big firms do substantial pro bono, but among those that do, the cases they choose can be telling. It's clear from the cases Gottlieb has chosen in the past that my politics and legal perspectives align well with his. That might not be true for everyone, which is fine. I like him.

[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.

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.

Please cite your direct source for the "plan" in question. From my last reviewing of Lively's evidence, a plan was never made or executed. As a matter of fact there are text specifically citing that the "internet" was doing the work for them.

[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.

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.

I am not the same poster. I am not sure why you think you are responding to only one person. Feel free to ask Jeff if you think I'm lying. Otherwise you're just ruining the thread with nonsense.

[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.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

[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”.

That's exactly the play I believe they're going to do. And that's IF Blake goes through with it. I think she's goint to pull the mental health card at the last minute and settle. But we'll see. Good analyzation of the strategy.

[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.

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.

Please cite your direct source for the "plan" in question. From my last reviewing of Lively's evidence, a plan was never made or executed. As a matter of fact there are text specifically citing that the "internet" was doing the work for them.

Why on earth would I bother doing that when once I do it you’re just going to sea otter it into oblivion, as you all have done with the other motions I listed that Freedman lost, and the problems Freedman faces with the MTDs going beyond mere dismissal with leave to amend? You can’t make and stick to a single straight argument. You picked the right side I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

Yes, I totally agree. I don’t think lawyers should be allowed to do things like that “slave contract” incident — it was a lie, and saying something like that is prejudicial, and moreover it makes our whole profession look bad, imho. If he would say that, what other lies would he tell?

I hear you and I’m sorry that you had to deal with attorneys like this to the extent that you left litigation. It really shouldn’t be that way. Honestly, I am working with a lawyer like this right now and am having similar thoughts, lol! There need to be firms where such lawyers are excluded from the get go!

[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.

Please cite your direct source for the "plan" in question. From my last reviewing of Lively's evidence, a plan was never made or executed. As a matter of fact there are text specifically citing that the "internet" was doing the work for them.

Why on earth would I bother doing that when once I do it you’re just going to sea otter it into oblivion, as you all have done with the other motions I listed that Freedman lost, and the problems Freedman faces with the MTDs going beyond mere dismissal with leave to amend? You can’t make and stick to a single straight argument. You picked the right side I guess.

I think you're confused. I am not the previous poster you were arguing with about MTD cases. I'm inquiring about text messages you say confirm a specific plan twas executed. I have never seen any of the evidence corroborating that but I'm willing to be proven wrong and corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What law firm handled that?

[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.

If Gottlieb had anything to do with the VanZan sham litigation, and I think he did, that is a million degrees worse than anything Freedman did. And just to cut off the inevitable responses, it was a sham because (1) the entity of the defendants were known, and Doe defendants should not have been used, and (2) Van Zan had no standing with respect to any of the claims it purported to bring.

[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).

You could argue he “lost” the protective order for another 50 pages and still be wrong, but that hasn’t stopped you yet and won’t in the future. The motion to stay discovery he did lose with respect to the NY Times but not the pr firm, which is indicative of how the MTD are likely to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If Gottlieb had anything to do with the VanZan sham litigation, and I think he did, that is a million degrees worse than anything Freedman did. And just to cut off the inevitable responses, it was a sham because (1) the entity of the defendants were known, and Doe defendants should not have been used, and (2) Van Zan had no standing with respect to any of the claims it purported to bring.

And 3) Baldoni and his co-dependants were never notified about the Vanzan suit.