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]I think part of the strategy here is to make a showy motion for sanctions against Freedman in part to beg the question: if the VanZan lawsuit was such a miscarriage of justice, why haven't they filed for sanctions against Lively and Manatt? By filing this motion, they can now respond to accusations of wrongdoing on VanZan with "so file for sanctions."

There are many, many irregular things about this litigation, on both sides. Which is why I am skeptical when people say things like "oh well I've never seen a successful Rule 11 filing." Same, but I've never seen as comprehensive and problematic a group pleading issue as Freedman has in this complaint. It's sticky and I'm surprised it hasn't been addressed. I'd never seen a letter to the court like the one Freedman filed last week, and certainly nothing like that affidavit. I have seen bench slaps as strong as Liman's last week, but not for this stage of litigation and not regarding something so.... bizarre.

I truly don't know what Liman will do with this motion and I no longer have a good sense of how the MTDs will shake out. I think we are reaching a critical point with the case where they are going to have to do a big hearing on everything pending and have it out, and then Liman will decided everything at once. And when I say "big hearing," I mean potentially a multi-day in person hearing this summer. Nothing like the little status conference back in February. A lot of issues are coming to a head at once and they are going to have to be decided together. And I think it's very hard to guess what the outcome of such a hearing could be because of the interconnected nature of all these issues -- the MTDs, this motion, and the ongoing discovery disputes. Which are likely about to get spicier because we are getting closer to deposition time.[/quote]

I think Liman is going to continue to mostly ignore this case until he gets around to it. There’s much more serious cases on his docket. This entertainment lawsuit is likely a low priority. It took him a year to rule on Bravo’s MTD in the Leah McSweeney case, and when he did, it was a denial.

I agree with the PPs who say the sanctions motion was intended to get the judge to speed up ruling on the MTDs, but I don’t think it will work. I’ve been saying for a while that I think Lively wants to have the MTDs ruled on before engaging in settlement talks. She’s been having a bad day pretty much ever since she opened this can of worms, and she wants to stop the bleeding.[/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