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]Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call.  During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all.  Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel.  And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior.  Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions.  I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children.  After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call?  And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb?  If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf[/quote]

Responding to myself to say, Gottlieb's story as related in his letter tracks.  I got a docket notification of Fritz/Freedman's MTC at 5:37 EST yesterday and the conference call per Gottlieb was at 4:30 EST.  This MTC was pre-loaded and ready to go, and apparently Freedman didn't raise that on the call at all.   [/quote]

Gottlieb's Sunday night email clearly left this in Freedman's court to raise during the call if he objected to dismissal without prejudice (which is fairly standard when one party drops claims before the SOL runs out tbh).  So why did Freedman have a whole MTC drafted and ready to go and not raise the issue at all during the call?

I can see why Lively would not want to produce medical records to this nutball obsessed with PR and honestly think he needs to be removed from the case for the parties to make any progress with one another.[/quote]

Judge Liman not mincing around but also not getting involved.  Denies the MTC and basically tells the parties to work it out amongst themselves, noting that if the parties cannot agree on whether to withdraw with or without prejudice, Lively needs to submit the request via a new motion:  "The motion to compel at Dkt. Nos. 261 and 262 is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn. Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively’s tenth and eleventh causes of action . . . the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal. The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion. For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress."

A bit of a rejection to both sides, but I think Gottlieb is building a narrative that Freedman is abusing the docket and Liman isn't biting every time.  Doesn't mean he won't bite again, though.

Can not imagine what the next call between the parties to discuss the withdrawal of these claims is going to be like.[/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