Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged?  I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.  [/quote]

What MTD? [/quote]

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly.  The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits.  Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively. [/quote]

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.[/quote]

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language).  Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).[/quote]

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation. [/quote]

Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him. [/quote]

Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal [/quote]

I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”[/quote]

Well, they’re right. [/quote]

And frankly, the short game.  It was a very bad week for Blake on the pr front.[/quote]

Agree. And people who keep saying Baldoni/freedman ‘got spanked’ are delusional and spinning. Baldoni has won, this was another nail in the coffin and BL should settle this as soon as she can. I understand she wants to try to get some little procedural ‘wins’ in so it looks like she has some leverage (‘oh the protective order was closer to what she wanted! ‘Oh the judge wrote Freedman a snippy response and kicked it to Dc!’). But that’s all piddly stuff.

My question is what happens to the NYT if Blake settles…

No word from the journalist, right?

Btw I heard freedman’s source was Taylor’s lawyer. HE used the term extort. [/quote]

The “journalist” Twohey should just cut the pretense and join seeking arrangements. Unprofessional and unethical hack for hire.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics