Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

Yes!!! Absolutely! Lively had an extension denied for the same reason — failure to show good cause! So here is what she did not do in response to that denial:

(1) Decide to just not file an amended complaint, and let the original flawed complaint stand. (Freedman did that!)

(2) File the doc that the extension was denied for, by the deadline, but file a total piece of sh!t that doesn’t comply with recognized legal norms such that it represents a giant middle finger to the party you are responding to. (Freedman didn’t do this. But wait!);

(3) Pull a number (2), above, EXCEPT FILE IT LATE. (Freedman did this!)

So yes Lively also had an extension denied, and in response her lawyers worked all weekend and filed a substantially improved Amended Complaint, whereas Freeman failed here at every turn.

Interrogatory responses are not filed.

But in regular conversations, real lawyers will often talk about filing interrogatory responses or will say they have been filed, even if they are just emailed. And if some other lawyer said the ROG responses had been filed, I wouldn’t run in to officiously correct them and say “YOU MEAN YOU EMAILED THEM?” because that would be jerkish. But you are on Team Freedman, King of all the Jerkish Attorneys, so you be you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

Yes!!! Absolutely! Lively had an extension denied for the same reason — failure to show good cause! So here is what she did not do in response to that denial:

(1) Decide to just not file an amended complaint, and let the original flawed complaint stand. (Freedman did that!)

(2) File the doc that the extension was denied for, by the deadline, but file a total piece of sh!t that doesn’t comply with recognized legal norms such that it represents a giant middle finger to the party you are responding to. (Freedman didn’t do this. But wait!);

(3) Pull a number (2), above, EXCEPT FILE IT LATE. (Freedman did this!)

So yes Lively also had an extension denied, and in response her lawyers worked all weekend and filed a substantially improved Amended Complaint, whereas Freeman failed here at every turn.

Interrogatory responses are not filed.

But in regular conversations, real lawyers will often talk about filing interrogatory responses or will say they have been filed, even if they are just emailed. And if some other lawyer said the ROG responses had been filed, I wouldn’t run in to officiously correct them and say “YOU MEAN YOU EMAILED THEM?” because that would be jerkish. But you are on Team Freedman, King of all the Jerkish Attorneys, so you be you!

I have never heard another lawyer described a response to interrogatories or interrogatories themselves, being filed, only served. Your office sounds odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

Nah, I litigate. I don’t always call myself “a litigator” because for the kinds of clients we handle, I am often not the one standing up in court at this stage of my career. But I respond to interrogatories, discovery, I write briefs, I prep for and take depositions, I work with experts. and I have stood up in court and made arguments for sure. Let me know what you do, since you don’t give any information on that.

I spent 15 years in litigation at two T10 law firms that actual take cases to court, worked as a litigator in federal government and am currently an AAG.

If you’re an assistant attorney general in this administration, I guess I can understand why you’re always so angry. My (sincere) condolences.

Assistant Attorney General is a position with a state. You appear to be confusing it with Asst US Attorney. You seem very unfamiliar with how litigation works.

I understand you are saying you work for a state, but you are wrong to say that all Assistant Attorney Generals do. See, e.g., prior Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter (DOJ Antitrust Division). There are federal AAGs that are not so high up , either — AAG Jolene Ann Lauria is AAG for Administration at DOJ.

So seems like you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about, actually. Sorry not sorry.

In which case, I would not have distinguished my federal service from my current position. Reading is fundamental.

That’s not what you said above, though. What you said above was: “ Assistant Attorney General is a position with a state.” And that was wrong. Meaning, you, the person who said that, were wrong.

You were wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

Nah, I litigate. I don’t always call myself “a litigator” because for the kinds of clients we handle, I am often not the one standing up in court at this stage of my career. But I respond to interrogatories, discovery, I write briefs, I prep for and take depositions, I work with experts. and I have stood up in court and made arguments for sure. Let me know what you do, since you don’t give any information on that.

I spent 15 years in litigation at two T10 law firms that actual take cases to court, worked as a litigator in federal government and am currently an AAG.

If you’re an assistant attorney general in this administration, I guess I can understand why you’re always so angry. My (sincere) condolences.

Assistant Attorney General is a position with a state. You appear to be confusing it with Asst US Attorney. You seem very unfamiliar with how litigation works.

I understand you are saying you work for a state, but you are wrong to say that all Assistant Attorney Generals do. See, e.g., prior Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter (DOJ Antitrust Division). There are federal AAGs that are not so high up , either — AAG Jolene Ann Lauria is AAG for Administration at DOJ.

So seems like you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about, actually. Sorry not sorry.

In which case, I would not have distinguished my federal service from my current position. Reading is fundamental.

That’s not what you said above, though. What you said above was: “ Assistant Attorney General is a position with a state.” And that was wrong. Meaning, you, the person who said that, were wrong.

You were wrong.

Are you arguing now that AAG is not a state position? Because it definitely is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

Yes!!! Absolutely! Lively had an extension denied for the same reason — failure to show good cause! So here is what she did not do in response to that denial:

(1) Decide to just not file an amended complaint, and let the original flawed complaint stand. (Freedman did that!)

(2) File the doc that the extension was denied for, by the deadline, but file a total piece of sh!t that doesn’t comply with recognized legal norms such that it represents a giant middle finger to the party you are responding to. (Freedman didn’t do this. But wait!);

(3) Pull a number (2), above, EXCEPT FILE IT LATE. (Freedman did this!)

So yes Lively also had an extension denied, and in response her lawyers worked all weekend and filed a substantially improved Amended Complaint, whereas Freeman failed here at every turn.

Interrogatory responses are not filed.

But in regular conversations, real lawyers will often talk about filing interrogatory responses or will say they have been filed, even if they are just emailed. And if some other lawyer said the ROG responses had been filed, I wouldn’t run in to officiously correct them and say “YOU MEAN YOU EMAILED THEM?” because that would be jerkish. But you are on Team Freedman, King of all the Jerkish Attorneys, so you be you!

I have never heard another lawyer described a response to interrogatories or interrogatories themselves, being filed, only served. Your office sounds odd.

Filed and served are definitely different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

Yes!!! Absolutely! Lively had an extension denied for the same reason — failure to show good cause! So here is what she did not do in response to that denial:

(1) Decide to just not file an amended complaint, and let the original flawed complaint stand. (Freedman did that!)

(2) File the doc that the extension was denied for, by the deadline, but file a total piece of sh!t that doesn’t comply with recognized legal norms such that it represents a giant middle finger to the party you are responding to. (Freedman didn’t do this. But wait!);

(3) Pull a number (2), above, EXCEPT FILE IT LATE. (Freedman did this!)

So yes Lively also had an extension denied, and in response her lawyers worked all weekend and filed a substantially improved Amended Complaint, whereas Freeman failed here at every turn.

Interrogatory responses are not filed.

But in regular conversations, real lawyers will often talk about filing interrogatory responses or will say they have been filed, even if they are just emailed. And if some other lawyer said the ROG responses had been filed, I wouldn’t run in to officiously correct them and say “YOU MEAN YOU EMAILED THEM?” because that would be jerkish. But you are on Team Freedman, King of all the Jerkish Attorneys, so you be you!

I have never heard another lawyer described a response to interrogatories or interrogatories themselves, being filed, only served. Your office sounds odd.

Really? Other than complaints, here in corporate litigation at my firm we rarely talk about serving papers. It’s email or Pacer, it all sort of falls under the vague filing umbrella, even if it’s technically served. But you may be the same person who had never heard of federal AAGs before, so ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

Yes!!! Absolutely! Lively had an extension denied for the same reason — failure to show good cause! So here is what she did not do in response to that denial:

(1) Decide to just not file an amended complaint, and let the original flawed complaint stand. (Freedman did that!)

(2) File the doc that the extension was denied for, by the deadline, but file a total piece of sh!t that doesn’t comply with recognized legal norms such that it represents a giant middle finger to the party you are responding to. (Freedman didn’t do this. But wait!);

(3) Pull a number (2), above, EXCEPT FILE IT LATE. (Freedman did this!)

So yes Lively also had an extension denied, and in response her lawyers worked all weekend and filed a substantially improved Amended Complaint, whereas Freeman failed here at every turn.

Interrogatory responses are not filed.

But in regular conversations, real lawyers will often talk about filing interrogatory responses or will say they have been filed, even if they are just emailed. And if some other lawyer said the ROG responses had been filed, I wouldn’t run in to officiously correct them and say “YOU MEAN YOU EMAILED THEM?” because that would be jerkish. But you are on Team Freedman, King of all the Jerkish Attorneys, so you be you!

I have never heard another lawyer described a response to interrogatories or interrogatories themselves, being filed, only served. Your office sounds odd.

Really? Other than complaints, here in corporate litigation at my firm we rarely talk about serving papers. It’s email or Pacer, it all sort of falls under the vague filing umbrella, even if it’s technically served. But you may be the same person who had never heard of federal AAGs before, so ymmv.

Sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

Not sure what you are talking about, judge cannot go beyond the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss.

You’re not allowed to sue people based on vibes, and then file ROG responses like these when the people you sue ask wtf you are suing them for.

It’s incredibly common to get the premature objection to interrogatories. Talk about making a mountain of a molehill. It’s like you have never actually litigated a case.

DP here, but it *is* uncommon to use the premature objection to an interrogatory that is just "please identify the defamatory statements you are accusing the defendant of making." They are arguing that it's too early to identify even one example of alleged behavior justifying their entire action against Sloane. That is definitely unusual.

Of course, it's also unusual for a complaint to have such egregious group pleading issues that it would be necessary for a defendant to ask the plaintiff "uh, what specifically are you suing me for" in an interrogatory. So I guess that's why I've never seen it before. Usually the response to a question like this would just be to refer to the portion of the complaint that outlines the defendant's alleged behavior.

And at risk of invoking some kind of seizure in the pro-Baldoni folks, I'll point out that one way to avoid this predicament, where you are suing someone for something but you can't specify what and you have to keep asking for more discovery in the hopes that it will produce for you a specific cause of action, is to file a Doe lawsuit in which to subpoena evidence you believe may give rise to a cause of action, and then use that evidence to file a complaint wherein you may properly plead specific causes of action against specific defendants. [ducks]

As we have repeatedly discussed, Doe cases are only appropriate when defendants are unknown and cannot be named. Which you would know if you were a litigator.

The lawsuit Freedman filed in California against the NYT prior to dropping it to refile in SDNY was a Doe case (go check my work, defendants are NYT and Does 1-100) even though Freedman clearly knew, and could have named, Lively, Reynolds, and Sloane.

It's almost like Doe lawsuits are incredibly common and often used when you have suspicions about who defendants might be and technically *could* name them, but want discovery in order to acquire enough evidence to properly plead.

But by all means, come take away my "LITIGATOR" card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

Yes!!! Absolutely! Lively had an extension denied for the same reason — failure to show good cause! So here is what she did not do in response to that denial:

(1) Decide to just not file an amended complaint, and let the original flawed complaint stand. (Freedman did that!)

(2) File the doc that the extension was denied for, by the deadline, but file a total piece of sh!t that doesn’t comply with recognized legal norms such that it represents a giant middle finger to the party you are responding to. (Freedman didn’t do this. But wait!);

(3) Pull a number (2), above, EXCEPT FILE IT LATE. (Freedman did this!)

So yes Lively also had an extension denied, and in response her lawyers worked all weekend and filed a substantially improved Amended Complaint, whereas Freeman failed here at every turn.

Interrogatory responses are not filed.

But in regular conversations, real lawyers will often talk about filing interrogatory responses or will say they have been filed, even if they are just emailed. And if some other lawyer said the ROG responses had been filed, I wouldn’t run in to officiously correct them and say “YOU MEAN YOU EMAILED THEM?” because that would be jerkish. But you are on Team Freedman, King of all the Jerkish Attorneys, so you be you!

I have never heard another lawyer described a response to interrogatories or interrogatories themselves, being filed, only served. Your office sounds odd.

Really? Other than complaints, here in corporate litigation at my firm we rarely talk about serving papers. It’s email or Pacer, it all sort of falls under the vague filing umbrella, even if it’s technically served. But you may be the same person who had never heard of federal AAGs before, so ymmv.

Very strange, pleadings that go to the court are very different things than discovery that only goes to the other parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

Nah, I litigate. I don’t always call myself “a litigator” because for the kinds of clients we handle, I am often not the one standing up in court at this stage of my career. But I respond to interrogatories, discovery, I write briefs, I prep for and take depositions, I work with experts. and I have stood up in court and made arguments for sure. Let me know what you do, since you don’t give any information on that.

I spent 15 years in litigation at two T10 law firms that actual take cases to court, worked as a litigator in federal government and am currently an AAG.

If you’re an assistant attorney general in this administration, I guess I can understand why you’re always so angry. My (sincere) condolences.

Assistant Attorney General is a position with a state. You appear to be confusing it with Asst US Attorney. You seem very unfamiliar with how litigation works.

I understand you are saying you work for a state, but you are wrong to say that all Assistant Attorney Generals do. See, e.g., prior Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter (DOJ Antitrust Division). There are federal AAGs that are not so high up , either — AAG Jolene Ann Lauria is AAG for Administration at DOJ.

So seems like you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about, actually. Sorry not sorry.

In which case, I would not have distinguished my federal service from my current position. Reading is fundamental.

That’s not what you said above, though. What you said above was: “ Assistant Attorney General is a position with a state.” And that was wrong. Meaning, you, the person who said that, were wrong.

You were wrong.

Are you arguing now that AAG is not a state position? Because it definitely is.

No. I said if you were a federal AAG I understood your anger, and PP said AAGs are not federal positions they are state positions. And I showed that there are federal AAGs, consistent with my original comment. So PPs claim that there were no federal AAGs was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

Honestly you people can’t read, how are you even attorneys? I can’t even

[Anonymous]

So much of the discussion here is painfully stupid, I don't know why I keep checking this thread. Everyone sounds like a child playacting as an attorney. Everyone. Both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

Not sure what you are talking about, judge cannot go beyond the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss.

You’re not allowed to sue people based on vibes, and then file ROG responses like these when the people you sue ask wtf you are suing them for.

It’s incredibly common to get the premature objection to interrogatories. Talk about making a mountain of a molehill. It’s like you have never actually litigated a case.

DP here, but it *is* uncommon to use the premature objection to an interrogatory that is just "please identify the defamatory statements you are accusing the defendant of making." They are arguing that it's too early to identify even one example of alleged behavior justifying their entire action against Sloane. That is definitely unusual.

Of course, it's also unusual for a complaint to have such egregious group pleading issues that it would be necessary for a defendant to ask the plaintiff "uh, what specifically are you suing me for" in an interrogatory. So I guess that's why I've never seen it before. Usually the response to a question like this would just be to refer to the portion of the complaint that outlines the defendant's alleged behavior.

And at risk of invoking some kind of seizure in the pro-Baldoni folks, I'll point out that one way to avoid this predicament, where you are suing someone for something but you can't specify what and you have to keep asking for more discovery in the hopes that it will produce for you a specific cause of action, is to file a Doe lawsuit in which to subpoena evidence you believe may give rise to a cause of action, and then use that evidence to file a complaint wherein you may properly plead specific causes of action against specific defendants. [ducks]

I, for one, appreciated both the substance and the humor of this post!

[Anonymous]

This case is a little different with regards to the discovery exchanges because of the PO. It was waived as to the interrogatory responses, which is how they were made public. So even though normally interrogatory responses would not be filed with the court, in this case it's not totally wrong to say filed because anything being made public has to go through the PO process they set up. There are steps beyond service of responses in this case that would not occur in most litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much of the discussion here is painfully stupid, I don't know why I keep checking this thread. Everyone sounds like a child playacting as an attorney. Everyone. Both sides.

Me either, this thread is mostly you.

[Anonymous]

Im kinda over the debates about group pleadings and MTDs. At this point, it’s all in Liman’s hands. I think realistically lawyers on both sides filed a bunch of claims that don’t pass the smell test.

On Lively’s side:

The SH claim is problematic but BF didn’t move to dismiss it b/c he’d rather challenge it before a jury b/c it’ll play against her. Her team can’t dismiss it themselves b/c they need it for PR. However, make no mistake, the SH claim is not winnable. Their best shot, as they’ve even indicated, is the retaliation.

They also should not be suing or naming Sorowitz as an individual. They could sue WF the company without suing or naming Sorowitz. It was a dumb move on their part to drag him in for multiple reasons: 1. He’s the money and now has a personal reason to fund the defense. 2. He’s a private person so he doesn’t have to prove actual malice in the defamation claim, so that’s a bigger risk for BL.

Also, and here my memory is admittedly rusty, but doesn’t lively also have a bit of a group pleading problem herself? I recall Jed Wallace saying in his motion to dismiss that he’s never met Lively and therefore could not have sexually harassed her, so I think that means she must have grouped him in with the others in her SH claim.

Not including Jones is also highly suspicious and that’s why in Jen Abel’s complaint she’s seeking to indemnify Jones, saying anything I did for WF was on behalf of Jonewswork and under your oversight, so my liability gets passed to you. This is the same reason WF would be liable in Blake’s case if she wins.

Baldoni:

They probably could’ve spared Leslie Sloane (but then why should they when the other side is dragging in Jed, Abel and Sorowitz). I don’t think they care if her case is dismissed, as she’s not really who they’re after.

NYT is a long shot because of the privileges and everyone knows it.