Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot follow this thread because you guys are all referring to lawyers and I have no idea who reps who.

Gottlieb, Bender,Bruno - Blake
Esra A. Hudson- Blake

Venable - Taylor's lawfirm

TY. And who is Justin's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot follow this thread because you guys are all referring to lawyers and I have no idea who reps who.

Lively and Reynolds lawyers are primarily Michael Gottlieb (Wilkie) and Esra Hudson (Mannatt).

Taylor’s lawyers are from Venable

Just Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties are represented by Brian Freedman and Mitchell Schuster.

TY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot follow this thread because you guys are all referring to lawyers and I have no idea who reps who.

There's a list here. This doesn't list Venable (law firm representing Taylor) which is a different docket but it has the other big players

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/parties/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

[Anonymous]

Wait, I admit I’m not totally following these recent developments, but why is it assumed that Blake lawyers would have to threaten to leak embarrassing texts about Taylor? Couldn’t Blake have done it?

Seems totally possible to me that in a fit of desperation and stress she was fighting with Taylor and threatened this. And agree the only reason for Freeman to know this is possibly someone on Taylor’s team got fed up and with Taylor’s blessing told him to nip this in the bud.

Tayloris also no stranger to lawsuits and if Blake actually asked her to delete texts, given this is an active lawsuit, she might have told her team that. Even if Blake wasn’t necessarily threatening, if Blake even asked this, Taylor might not have wanted to be involved and told her team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I admit I’m not totally following these recent developments, but why is it assumed that Blake lawyers would have to threaten to leak embarrassing texts about Taylor? Couldn’t Blake have done it?

Seems totally possible to me that in a fit of desperation and stress she was fighting with Taylor and threatened this. And agree the only reason for Freeman to know this is possibly someone on Taylor’s team got fed up and with Taylor’s blessing told him to nip this in the bud.

Tayloris also no stranger to lawsuits and if Blake actually asked her to delete texts, given this is an active lawsuit, she might have told her team that. Even if Blake wasn’t necessarily threatening, if Blake even asked this, Taylor might not have wanted to be involved and told her team.

It's directly stated by Freedman in this letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.217.0_1.pdf

Better read/download it now cause Blake's lawyers moved to strike it from the docket.

I agree with you. Its believable Blake did that but not the lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We told you that Blake was this person a few hundred pages ago. The denials. The gaslighting. The “you never have anything but negative to say about Blake” comments.

When TK unfollowed RR, I knew it was definitely over then. More contortions.

So can we now say that this is probably a cooked friendship? And can we say that if these allegations about extortion and spoilage are true, that Blake probably did the same to Justin?

Can we also conclude that Blake plays dirty and will throw anyone under the bus?

Are we at that point yet?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like Blake made a threat and then Gottlieb sent a letter that referenced that conversation. Perhaps he was under the impression that the conversation went differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

[Anonymous]

Someone asked me earlier today why I seemed so angry. I mentioned to blame the case, and not me.


At this point for Blake, she’s probably freaking out about possibly having to pay JB $400million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone asked me earlier today why I seemed so angry. I mentioned to blame the case, and not me.


At this point for Blake, she’s probably freaking out about possibly having to pay JB $400million.

Oh yeah, all that money. I honestly forget that's at stake sometimes since this seems to be such a battle of reputation for me, but you're right. Getting trashed in the press and knowing very few people are on your side, you're going to be blackballed by Hollywood and lose your career, losing your friends, and you might have to pony up that kind of cash? Gotta be rough in the Reynolds household unless they're such narcissists they're deluded about that being the track they're on (particularly Blake...) which I concede is a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

Didn’t Blake try to litigate in the press with her NY Times hit piece? Or was that straight up libel at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

Not to mention they probably had someone watching pacer after all the recent filings, including the Lively letter to which Freedman was responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)