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]Liman granted the protective order without explaining his decision

BUT

if I knew absolutely nothing about this case and had never heard of any of the litigants, but you told me that the defandants' attorney had told a tabloid that they wanted to take the plaintiff's deposition in Madison Square Garden and sell tickets to the event, this is the the outcome I would predict.

You can't do stuff like that and expect the court to overlook it or give you the benefit of the doubt. Think of it from the court's position. If Liman rejects this PO and then Lively is accosted by photographers when showing up to her deposition, or details from the depo are leaked to tabloids, the court will have clearly erred in not doing something to protect the plaintiff especially since the defendants' attorney was on the public record promising something like that. Whereas there is really no downside to granting the PO. Having the depo at Gottlieb's office is not some magical advantage. It's an office building. It's not that big of a deal.

Freedman had to have known this would be a likely outcome of him making the MSG comment. And it would have been stupid for Lively's attorneys not to press for it, because it's more convenient and easier for them so why not use Freedman's screw up to their advantage.

Saying this means Liman is "corrupt" is bananas. This is what every judge I've ever encountered would do in this situation. It's an easy decision.[/quote]

I've actually defended Liman or attempted to post neutral analysis of his decisions (which for the most part I have agreed with except for the Jed Wallace client list) but it does stand out that he made zero attempt here to provide any basis for this decision, neither legal not factual. He typically does that. It's kind of sus TBH.

So what if there are paparazzi? There can be paparazzi at Manatt's office too. The date and time of the depo is out there. If Wayfarer wants to leak info from the depo they can do that regardless of location. They can be sanctioned for that. I don't see this great concern, for example, of what happens if Wallace's client list gets leaked and he loses his reputation and business. Judge said it was protected by the existing PO. The existing PO also protects from Lively's deposition getting livestreamed or leaked.[/quote]

There's a note in the docket suggesting something was filed under seal at the same time the order was issued. It's possible Liman issued a non-public ruling. Could have questioned some of Freedman's recent behavior but not wanted to bad mouth him publicly. Could also have set some conditions on time/date/whatever that he doesn't want public so as not to worsen the publicity problem. In any case, I think the docket entry suggests that he did give some explanation, we just don't have it.[/quote]

I've never heard of this, wouldn't they just redact the portions of the decision that are sealed? As stupid as this case is, court proceedings should be public to the extent possible.[/quote]

Agree with this.  [/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