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]Liman is going to side with Lively because he gives her everything she wants, so don't be surprised. [/quote]

This is a bad read of what's been going on in this case, and Baldoni supporters should continue to believe it at their peril.  Baldoni's supporters are committing countless unforced errors and you guys continue to lap it up and fail to call them on it because you're trapped in an echo chamber.

A female plaintiff claiming sexual harassment and retaliation asks for a dep to be held at her counsel's firm because she can't get a straight answer from opposing counsel for four days re who will be attending and that it won't be mayhem, and opposing counsel's response is to mock her concerns and say they will just allow her security just to walk her into the building?

Shuster probably could have avoided this result had they filed a letter that said some of what they said here, but just phrased it in a way that showed they were serious.  "We take Ms. Lively's concerns seriously and can have additional security available to walk her in and out.  None of the attendees will be members of the press.  We are not looking for a media circus."  etc.  Instead he mocked and grandstanded, and now they aren't hosting anymore.  Absolutely unforced error.  [/quote]

I agree with you that Liman isn’t corrupt and they he did the right thing here. But I don’t think you’re seeing the bigger picture. The location doesn’t matter either way, and Baldonis side knows that. Freedman is just trolling Blake, pointing out she’s a Prima Donna and expects special treatment whenever she goes. He made his point. The issue isn’t a big deal. [/quote]

Hoo boy do I disagree with you on this one.  You're talking about the bigger picture like it's purely on the PR side -- does Lively look like a diva to Baldoni fans and will that continue to incite their rabid reactions in this case?

Whereas to me the [i][b]real[/b][/i] bigger picture is that [u]Liman will be deciding very soon whether or not to grant discovery against the Liman Freedman firm itself, for participating in the smears[/u], and this entire briefing just reinforced Gottlieb's themes that Freedman is a bizarro wildcard who does not follow normal rules of professional conduct for lawyers -- which reinforces the fact that as Gottlieb is arguing, Freedman himself may very well be involved in the smear.  I bet that decision is coming early this week.  You think it was good for Liman to be reading that Vin Diesel pleading while he's deciding that issue?  I do not.

In fact, I think having that Vin Diesel pleading in his back pocket is exactly why Gottlieb had his people send the email insisting the dep would occur at Lively's law firm in the first place.  It was a bit of a threat -- give in to us on the location and the attendees or we will send your crazy behavior as described in this pleading to Judge Liman.  And Garofalo scoffed and provided zero reassurances, so Gottlieb filed the motion.[/quote]

Go to your thread!! No one here cares about your obsession with Freedman![/quote]

Speak for yourself, I thought this was interesting.

-Not a lawyer [/quote]

Thank you!  One addition to what I said above is that the parties are supposed to report in by 5pm today their take on whether Liman can rule on the papers already submitted re the Liman Freedman subpoena issue.  So if someone wants to submit additional briefings, that could slow Liman's ruling down.[/quote]

Oh, I didn't realize that was this week. I think Lively will win (legitimately, for the most part). It's relevant because Freedman is named in her complaint as part of her ongoing defamation claim and he did not attempt to dismiss it. Communications with third parties like media and content creators won't be privileged or to the extent privileged they can produce a log. At the time I think I posted that Liman would narrow the scope of her requests a bit but now I think he will give almost everything because he's, uh, generous in accepting her arguments lately.[/quote]

I think Liman might surprise us by ruling against her on this.  First, because he's stuck with the way he treated the WF defamation claim, and its hard to argue that the evidence she's seeking is meaningfully going to be relevant at trial, and as he's also previously expressed disdain at bringing the attorneys too much into the case in chief.  Further, it's a really bad precedent to open attorneys up to discovery for statements made during the course of doing their job and he also doesn't want to do something that is going to jeopardize reversal on appeal.   The so called untraceable scheme remains pretty much untraceable.   Discovery orders aren't appealable but this could rise to something that puts the entire case in jeopardy down the line.  But a lot of his rulings have sucked, so I agree there is a reasonable probability that he could rule for her.[/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