Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Liman was not bought for following the law? He states what rule he's using ans is trying to avoid the letters being used as a way to promote unproven and libelous statements. He's right here. |
Anonymous
| I wonder of Gottlieb will request sanctions. Liman sounds pissed enough to grant them. |
Anonymous
| Didn’t this all start with the Lively attorneys asking Liman to weigh in on the enforcement of subpoenas in other jurisdictions? He just refused to do so. |
Anonymous
Nope, Gottlieb could still file for sanctions against Freedman, and could submit evidence to rebut there or even request an evidentiary hearing requiring Freedman to provide his source. Gottlieb definitely still has weapons to fight the defamatory nature of these filings, and it also appears he has Liman's backing on that. |
Anonymous
| This whole saga is a lesson that just because you have power and someone you don’t like appears subservient to you, that does not mean you should flex your power and influence or assume they are dumb weakling who will cower. |
Anonymous
I don’t agree, Liman says he doesn’t want to hear about this issue because it relates to a subpoena he has no jurisdiction over. |
Anonymous
... no? It started when Freedman filed an insane and likely defamatory letter in federal court accusing a respected attorney of extorting the biggest pop star in the world. |
Anonymous
A request for sanctions would not be asking Liman to rule on the subpoena. It would be asking Liman to rule properly on the actions of a lawyer in his own court. And based on Liman's strongly worded order, he's in a mood to punish that lawyer for doing something very, very stupid and irregular (and using Liman's court to do it). |
Anonymous
|
More detail on the court's reasoning in the Order with his opinion, here, also basically noting that filing docs with a court can give cover for defamation (so this could ultimately work in Baldoni's favor somewhere down the road): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.220.0_1.pdf
The Letter is improper and must be stricken. It is irrelevant to any issue before this Court and does not request any action from this Court. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to strike matter within pleadings that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.” [cites]. It concerns a subpoena proceeding in the District of Columbia over which this Court has no authority. The sole purpose of the Letter is to “promote public scandal” by advancing inflammatory accusations, on information and belief, against Lively and her counsel. [cites]. It transparently invites a press uproar by suggesting that Lively and her counsel attempted to “extort” a well-known celebrity. Retaining the Letter on the docket would be of no use to the Court and would allow the Court’s docket to serve as a “reservoir[] of libelous statements for press consumption.” [cites]. The same is true for the Wayfarer Parties’ subsequent submission at Dkt. No. 219, which the Court will strike sua sponte for the same reasons. The Second Circuit has noted that court filings may be abused to make potentially defamatory statements without the threat of liability, given that under New York law, “absolute immunity from liability for defamation exists for oral or written statements made . . . in connection with a proceeding before a court.” [cites]. It has advised the press accordingly that “although the act of filing a document with a court might be thought to lend that document additional credibility, in fact, allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than those published elsewhere.” Id. The court is saying, for now, that whether this information is true or not doesn't matter to him right now and it wasn't appropriate to file these scandalous allegations on his docket, making the case an issue for tabloid fodder when there is no decision in front of him right now where this info would be relevant to him. (That's what I was saying pages ago -- Governski was right that this isn't relevant so why is he filing it except to create a big stir?) So now I guess we just watch the DC court docket with the motion to quash and see what happens there. |
Anonymous
| Someone actually reported the comment "Liman was bought"? Ridiculous. Pro-Liveliers are getting desperate. |
Anonymous
Which was a response to a letter from Lively’s attorneys asking Liman to weigh in on the DC and Ga subpoenas. He quite clearly said in this order, he is not exercising jurisdiction over them. |
Anonymous
I reported it and I’m pro Baldoni. It’s a stupid thing to say. |
Anonymous
Sure. Of course you are. And I'm pro-Lively and think it was a fair comment to make. |
Anonymous
| Sorry for double posting the Liman order language - didn't see it had already been posted. |
Anonymous
Dp. Agree. Ridiculous |