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]Not actually golden agrees the motion is odd given the case circumstances.   https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP86WY8Cc/[/quote]

She gave Blake’s request for sanctions a 98% chance of failing.  Failing!![/quote]

Yeah, NAG didn’t think Liman would strike Freedman’s filings either and thought it was weird he did (and she oddly blamed Hudson for raising it in the first place when once again she was simply doing the perfectly normal thing of notifying a judge of related proceedings going on in a different jurisdiction!).  So while I actually agree that I don’t think Liman will grant sanctions on this motion, NAG’s 98% odds are not exactly something anyone should be placing bets on. [/quote]

I am increasingly skeptical of NAG. I also think it's a little odd that she is not very forthcoming with her legal credentials. I increasingly think she has quite limited experience with this kind of litigation and with federal court specifically. She's not totally off base most of the time, but sometimes her analysis is off in weird ways that make me think she's reading up on these issues before making her videos and doesn't full understand how it normally works, but claiming she does. She uses a lot of qualifiers and adopts this very specific tone to sort of cover herself, but I think she's been very wrong a few times lately.

Early on her analysis was more balanced and she made a sort of decided shift towards being more critical of Lively's legal team and complimentary of Freedman at some point. Not overwhelmingly so -- Freedman is a clever lawyer and Lively's team has made some unforced errors so it didn't jump out at me at the time. But increasingly I think that like a lot of creators, she recognizes there's more clicks and money in catering to the pro-JB side and this has led her to put out some weak analysis in order to give people what they want to hear (like saying this motion has a 98% chance of losing, which is a pretty crazy thing to say given that Liman has indicated he is losing patience with Wayfarer and Freedman -- I think the more likely thing is that he splits the baby, granting the motion but awarding very minimal fees so that he gets rid of this group pleading issue now but it's not like he's aggressively punishing Wayfarer for it).

NAG seems to increasingly be siding with Baldoni's lawyers on everything at a time in the litigation where I think Lively's team is executing some good procedural moves, even if her PR has not kept up at all.[/quote]

Could NOT disagree with this more.  Been practicing  for two decades and have never seen a successful motion for Rule 11 sanctions.  It’s a very weird move that I think is client driven and will likely backfire.[/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