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]Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.[/quote]

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb. [/quote]

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question.  He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.[/quote]

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)  [/quote]

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party.  He’s been less than impressive here.  I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.[/quote]

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship.  Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent.  It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.[/quote]

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part:  (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest. [/quote]

Wut?  Doesn't seem like "putting the burden on Freedman" would be denying the motion.

I think Liman is going to give Gottlieb some but not all of this.  Will allow all of 1-4 (since Garofalo doesn't even seem to contest, just says the answer will be "none").  Will narrow/cut 5-8.  Seemed to be redesigning ROG 5 to incorporate Liner responses?  Not sure if he will require production of the Liner firm agreements with others like Meghyn Kelly, Hilton, etc - they do seem relevant to the smear issue tbh.  AEO!  [/quote]

Until they have some evidence to support the existence of a smear prior to the date they filed the complaint, they should get not discovery for after the complaint was filed.

All lawyers talk to the press about high profile litigation.  Gottlieb’s argument borders on the absurd at this point.  At least Freedman filed an affidavit about his Taylor intimidation allegations, Gottlieb is allowed to freely slander Freedman without any evidence at all.

It really seems that just a few weeks before the discovery deadline, they have nothing to support their retaliation allegations other than one or two ambiguous texts from Nathan.

Wallace amended complaint is due by midnight tonight.[/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