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]

Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret?  That just seems incredibly dumb.  Having a hard time understanding this tbh.

[/quote]

Yeah her lawyers aren't above PR filings, but gambling on not getting unsealed would have been extremely dumb. And whatever you think of them they're not dumb. The only thing that makes sense to me is this was the opposite of a PR filing, ie they were counting on WF not opposing because they can't resist a "she lied!!!" moment. (Hudson's letter wasn't a lie, but it was misleading to the public, if not the court, if most of the subpoenaed SM accounts aren't on the ROG list.) I guess they're willing to endure that as a sort of sacrifice bunt and then the de-designation benefits them in a broader way? Alternatively, they desperately need this one ROG de-designated right away for reasons unrelated to SM subpoenas.... maybe related to the Popcorn Planet guy's individual subpoena? [/quote]

But, look, maybe they were just dumb this time.  Maybe they felt really affronted by popcorn planet guy's behavior and thought everyone would be on their side because he taped the receptionist? [/quote]

Hudson seemed very huffy about that, which I thought was funny because what do you expect from content creators, they are literally attention seeking types (I'm rooting for most of them in their motions, but just saying). That's really the least of what you could expect from them. Perez posts on reddit (ugh) and someone said he should add an interrogatory with all the insults he has for Blake and list them lmao (his subpoena is directly to him asking for substantive information). I'm not sure if the non-parties can participate in the google meet and confers but that would be hilarious if they can and if they post details.

She also seemed very butthurt about AEO, which was something Freedman wanted the burden to be on the person designating, and as has been discussed here many times, Lively got her way on that - the parties can designate and they have to go to the judge to de-designate. And Hudson is all "they didn't even want that! and now they're using it!!! not cool!"

I really don't know what they were thinking, if there's some additional layer of strategy here. It kind of gives credence to the people who insist Blake and Ryan run the show because it just doesn't make sense strategically based on what we've seen. I love this case, there's some ridiculous twist almost every day. [/quote]

A pro-Baldoni redditor I think has a theory that Lively just wanted to shut everybody up because protective orders will be imposed restricting what they can say for some period of time?  That makes no sense to me because I thought the vast majority of these content creators were pretty small.  And on the other end of that spectrum, is the judge really going to put a gag order on Candace Owens or the popcorn planet guy telling them they can't talk about the Badoni case?  I doubt that.  So that whole theory doesn't make sense to me either.

The protective order, continuing to wreak havoc on p.960+ of this thread.  Yeah, that was petty of Hudson.  (Game recognizes game on my part there.)

>>"I thought was funny because what do you expect from content creators, they are literally attention seeking types"  lolol, true![/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