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]New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case. 
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding." 
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?[/quote]

Could be that they are arguing that their own claims involve issues for the trier of fact that can't be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, and arguing that other claims could be dismissed at this stage could get in the way of that.  And also as PP says, the Lively complaint is strong enough to survive such a motion.

[u]I also found it interesting that Freedman is basically immediately conceding the group pleading point and noting that they will amend their complaint immediately (basically ignoring/evading NYTs argument that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone)[/u].  In other words, had Freedman not so amended, the complaint likely would have been dismissed on these grounds (likely without prejudice).  [/quote]

[/b]This is how one builds credibility with the Court[b].  Now the judge doesn’t have to waste time on that argument.[/quote]

lol no. You don’t build credibility by filing a crap complaint then amending it. [/quote]

[b]The judge would have allowed them to replead anyway.  This just moves up the timeline and saves the judge time.  Now he just has to consider the actual dispositive arguments made by The NY Times.[/quote]

probably but my point was it’s not “building credibility” to file a crap complaint then amend it when you see the MTD and you realize you are out of your depth legally [/quote]

Worse, they already amended it once, didn't address the obvious defect, and now will want leave to amend it again. And at the same time, they are asking the court to deny the NYT's request to stay discovery until after the MTD has been resolved. So they are protracting the MTD deliberations due to their own sloppy pleading but also arguing they can't possibly be expected to wait until after the MTD proceedings are complete to start discovery against the NYT. It's so messy.[/quote]

[b]It’s not messy at all[/b]. Discovery is already ongoing.  You may be aware of that given that Blake’s subpoenas were just quashed for failure to meet the relevancy requirements.  Had her lawyers just fixed them instead of ignoring their “obvious defects” once such defects were pointed out, they wouldn’t have been quashed.  [b]Sometimes a little humility goes a long way[/b].[/quote]

It’s not messy at all!  Freedman is a legal mastermind!  He probably intentionally made the group pleading mistake so that the judge would not be intimidated by his superior legal skillz![/quote]

What I said was it wasn’t messy for discovery to be going on while he amended the Complaint.  But go off .. . [b]This is likely the closest Blake will come to a development worth celebrating, even if it is completely meaningless.[/b][/quote]

Reposting another walk down memory lane from March, back when the MTDs were being filed, the NYT had moved for a stay, and everyone was questioning the group pleading problems with Baldoni's complaint.  Freedman said he would amend it, and Baldoni supporters said "that's how you build credibility with the court" and complimented Freedman's "humility" lol!  Of course as we know now, Freedman never did bother amending the complaint, so I guess that "building credibility" effort went nowhere.  Then, above, another Baldoni supporter predicted that this admission from Freedman on the group pleading problems would "likely [be] the closest Blake will come to a development worth celebrating."  Not sure that turned out the way you guys thought it would. [/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