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][quote=Anonymous]Let's compare:

Lively parties negotiate in good faith for 3 months over ROG responses with Baldoni parties, still don't get reasonable responses and get more and more delays, and finally submit their MTC to the judge, whereupon Baldoni supporters say further negotiation was needed.

Baldoni parties held a meet and confer with Lively parties on Wednesday, May 28 to discuss Lively's failure to provide the name of medical providers; two days later on Friday, Lively parties told Baldoni Lively was dropping her emotional distress claims and thereupon ensued the drama between dismissing with and without prejudice.  Freedman emailed Gottlieb at 11:30 pm Saturday and 1am Sunday to resolve, and Gottlieb emailed back at 9:30 pm Sunday to say without prejudice and if you have problems let's resolve during our 4:30pm Monday meet and confer.  During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all, and immediately after which he filed his own Motion to Compel, which Baldoni supporters thought was pretty reasonable.  (Freedman's motion was denied.)

Seems like folks are applying a double standard here, but ymmv.[/quote]

All of these requests went out around the same time, which means Lively’s team had been dragging their feet on the medical records for three months before it all finally came to a head. Blake’s lawyers just write in a much more whiney woe is me kind of way because they’ve taken on the personality of their client but they haven’t turned over much either. BF said as much in replying to a past MTC. [/quote]

Nah, Freedman was the only one turning ROG responses in late, if you will recall (as per prior letter motions filed complaining about it). Remember when Freedman asked for an extension on their ROG and RFP responses so they would be due in mid-May instead of April 14th, and the judge said no way, you haven't shown good cause?  (See 4/10/25 order.)  And then remember when, in late April, the Lively parties filed multiple MTC's because Freedman's team responded to the ROGs with absolute non-answers, like "In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time" but were willing to meet and confer, lol?  Benson filed those Responses (late) on 4/18 and within 2 weeks after further unsuccessful meet and confer, Gottlieb filed their MTC on them by the end of the month.  There is no evidence in the record that Lively's ROG or RFP responses have been late or so deliriously non-responsive.  And if Lively's team answered the RFP for medical records documents with a flat no as Summer's letter indicates, why on earth did it take Freedman's team more than an entire month longer to complain about it, in late May instead of late April like Gottlieb managed?  Seems like that's mismanagement on Freedman.

I can see how Freedman's delay tactics of "we'll give you a little bit more but no where near what you're entitled to" might tend to make negotiations seem possible and therefore could lead lawyers to keep negotiating until, like here, Gottlieb's team just gives up.  But if Gottlieb gave a flat no to the medical records as indicated, then Freedman's team sat on that info for a month before forcing a quick weekend turnaround and ignored the subject altogether on the M&C call, seems like Freedman is operating in bad faith and for the media as per usual.  [/quote]

That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything. [/quote]

But that was before the parties agreed on the ESI protocol.  At the time, Lively's side was trying to get Freedman to agree to the protocol because they wanted all parties to begin producing documents and were also trying to get Freedman to agree to a proposed date of all parties first production, which he also would not due.  While Lively had not begun producing docs before the ESI protocol was agreed to, and while I don't know for sure because I can't see the correspondence, the record strongly suggests to me that the Lively parties began producing around the date of the first production date they had teed up and tried to get Freedman to agree to (was it end of April?  Early May?  I can't remember).  That's because they are building a record to complain about later given Freedman's lack of production, and will be comparing their own production against Baldoni's etc.[/quote]

As you said, you don’t know. The fact is that from the beginning the lively parties have been more aggressive in filing motions, including frivolous ones like their motions for sanctions against everyone except Baldoni for daring to sue them. That doesn’t mean they’ve been more cooperative.[/quote]

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from the clues in the party email communications as someone who deals with discovery disputes all the time.  Lively wouldn't have been trying to get Freedman to agree to a production date if they weren't going to be ready to produce themselves; they would have let Freedman draw it out.  Gottlieb etc. have been acting like they're carefully building a record that they can reference when they complain about it later.  That's my prediction here -- that at some point in early July or so we'll see another MTC complaining that Freedman hasn't provided the requisite documents responsive to the requests as required by the CMO.

I'm not sure Freedman's team of a few lawyers is really keeping up with Lively's on getting the ROG/RFP responses in on time, having them actually be responsive, reviewing Lively's responses to same, and actually providing the agreed upon materials.  Lively's team probably has dozens of associates and partners working on this between all the firms, but Freedman seems to just have four or five; I'm sure Freedman has far fewer lawyers (and they only have the Freedman firm and Meister Seelig) and yet they have just as much if not more to do.  I suspect they're not keeping up.

To me the purpose of the sanctions motions are to emphasize the paucity of evidence on the claims at issue, emphasize Freedman hasn't amended the complaint as promised, and so build the record that dismissal of the claims at issue in those motions should be granted with prejudice.  We'll see if it pans out or not, but it does give the judge a full record to work with.[/quote]

Oh fascinating. /s

Is this litigator mom? Or Yale Law mom? Or just little old Arlington mom? Or maybe you’re fact checker to multiple publications mom?

When is your contract up? [/quote]

Last time y’all tried to figure out who was who over here we lured out your “they’re tracking our IP addresses!” lady. I’d worry about what other oddballs you’ve got over there, personally.

Recap of this week:

1. Lively drops her emotional distress claims.  Lively can’t claim those monetary damages, but also Freedman doesn’t get to use her doctors to say she has various mental health issues as happened with Amber Heard. Freedman’s motion to compel these records is denied.

2. Two additional amicus briefs supporting Lively are filed including one on the constitutionality of 47.1 and another on DARVO tactics used by abusers (consistent with filing harassing defamation claims).

3.  Vituscka files declaration clarifying Sloane didn’t say Baldoni sexually assaulted or harassed Lively, potentially killing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Also agrees to fork over 6 months of communications with Freedman. It’s like a Reverse Swift, without the struck pleadings!

4.  Jed Wallace asks again if he can please just take his ball and go home. 🙏 Decision pending.

5.  Liman says Jones gets to keep her tech investigation team’s communications privileged and his footnote makes clear that he has seen Freedman’s argument that the subpoena creates a crime fraud exemption and rejects it here.

6.  Baldoni finally gets an amicus!  Oh wait -

[/quote]

That was sarcastic. We know who’s over here.

And you were the one who set up the ‘Baldoni fans are nuts and think we’re tracking them!’ by pretending to be a pro JB poster who was crazy. Sometimes you like to be neutral too ‘I’ve never been a fan of BL but…’ sometimes you like to be a pro JB over the top misogynist, so your partner can then chime in’ ‘how can you support someone who has supporters like this??!’

By now, the regulars on here all can you tell the Lively posters style, so just stop. [/quote]

Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and you're like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.[/quote]

I miss this person.  Funny but not overly mean, and also not deranged.[/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