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]This is a really good summary of today's hearing. It was neither a big win for either side nor a terrible day for either side.

https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7467272021399899438

Quick summary:
- Lively's protective order (what the press keeps calling a "gag order") was rejected.
- The judge did say that all parties are now subject to New York ethics rules since the cases have been consolidated in NY. He also said that if the parties tried to try the case in the press or were talking about the case a ton in the press, he might move the trial date up, so that probably will have a tempering impact on both sides in terms of comments to the press. The lawyer in the video above notes that both sides have a ton of discovery they want so no one is going to want to move up the trial.
- Baldoni's team had requested to depose Lively immediately even though responses haven't been filed yet. The judge rejected that request and said Lively could be deposed when discovery begins in earnest.
- However Lively's request not to be deposed by Freedman (lol but shoot your hot kid!) was rejected, as even any first year law students would have expected.
- Lively's team made a bit of a stink about some of the attachments in Baldoni's amended complaint. The judge apparently did give Freedman a bit of a hard time about this, and Lively's lawyers said they might file a Rule 11 challenge on that. We'll see.
- Lively's team said she'd be filing an amended complaint by the 14th, judge said fine.
- Lively's team told the judge that in anticipation that some of the third-party depositions in the case might be of very high profile people, they will be requesting a protective order to potentially keep some of those depositions out of the public record. Judge said that he would entertain that petition and told them to draft it. I'm guessing it will be a situation where they selectively seal certain depositions in case Freedman asks questions that could be embarrassing to the person being deposed but are not strictly relevant to the case but I don't know. The judge didn't seem opposed to it.

So pretty procedural. I don't understand these comment saying "Lively lost all the motions." This was basically a status hearing with a couple competing requests from the parties. Both sides got denied things they wanted (and that they were likely never going to get anyway). But probably they didn't expect to get those things anyway. Often lawyers make motions like that more to be able to get certain arguments on the record than because they think it will happen. I don't think anyone "won" the hearing and it doesn't sound like the judge is mad at anyone. It sounds like it was pretty drama free.[/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