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]Perez has gone loco.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.577.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.578.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.579.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.580.0.pdf

[/quote]

lmaooo. How do we think Liman is going to react?[/quote]

I bet he's never been called sexy before in a filing.  :shock:

I find it funnier thinking of Hudson or Gottlieb firing off an indignant motion to strike. The humanity! [/quote]

What he should do is sanction Hilton.  Those filing are not appropriate.  [/quote]

I think if they were remarks against someone else, the judge might do something.  But as long as the criticism is pointed specifically at the judge, I think it will roll off of him and he knows that he's expected to let it roll off of him.

That doesn't mean Liman will grant him any of the relief he asked if it's not warranted.  Anyone who says Liman is biased here is bananas because Hilton has thrown the wildest insults at him and yet Liman still (within hours of receiving a filing complaining about unredacted residential addresses from Hilton) immediately sealed some pleadings containing residential addresses and also required Hudson to prove that she had sent Hilton unsealed pleadings needed to understand and respond to her filing.  He took these actions pretty immediately, and they benefitted Hilton.  So anyone who says Liman is biased isn't really looking.

That said, Hilton has used ChatGPT and filed two pleadings so far with hallucinated cases.  So I don't think he's going to win on the *substance* of any of the pleadings against him.[/quote]

I am PP above and I am the poster who has made posts before about being right about things other posters here have been wrong about (PO being granted for Lively, dismissal of Baldoni's complaint, etc.).

However, I was totally wrong in my comment above, because the judge just filed this order (re Hilton):  "ORDER: Recently, a number of filings in this case have included intemperate language and personal attacks against parties, their counsel, and the Court. All individuals filing documents in this case whether represented or not are advised that they shall not in any submission to this Court use language that is disrespectful of the parties, their counsel, or the Court. This includes, but is not limited to, using demeaning nicknames for parties or their counsel or accusing the Court of being in words or in substance biased, criminal, or corrupt. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 8/8/2025) (ks) (Entered: 08/08/2025)"

I thought Liman would sit back and take it but apparently he is not down with that ish.[/quote]

On the other hand, I was absolutely right that Liman would strike the filing of Lively's entire deposition transcript.  ha ha.[/quote]

It's so beautiful:

"[Fritz's] Letter [for Wayfarer] broadly asserts that there is no evidence the Wayfarer Parties, Bryan Freedman, or his firm have participated in a smear campaign against Lively. Dkt. No. 538. For support, the Letter quotes one fragment of one sentence from Lively’s deposition. Id. In the deposition, Lively testifies that she believes that the Wayfarer Parties have retaliated against her for reporting harassment by engaging in an ongoing smear campaign, but she (appropriately) refuses to reveal information disclosed to her in confidence by her counsel. See Dkt. No. 538-1 at 201:14–202:23. The Letter also includes as an attachment the entire uncertified 292-page transcript of Lively’s deposition. Id.

Lively now moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and the Court’s inherent power to strike the attachment on the grounds that “there is no conceivable legal purpose to file the whole transcript.” Dkt. No. 540. Lively argues that the Wayfarer Parties have included the entire transcript solely for strategic media and public-relations purposes. Specifically, given the Court’s individual practices regarding sealed materials, the Wayfarer Parties’ decision has put Lively in the position of “defend[ing] the continued sealing of the transcript.” Id. Lively contends the Wayfarer Parties have done so in order to “advance a false narrative that Ms. Lively is afraid of her deposition testimony becoming public, which is entirely untrue.” Id.

The Court agrees that inclusion of the entire deposition transcript served no proper purpose and accordingly grants the motion to strike....

The Wayfarer Parties’ attachment of the entire, nearly 300-page deposition—after citing only two pages of it in the Letter—served no proper litigation purpose and instead appears to have been intended to burden Lively (and as a result, the Court) and to invite public speculation and scandal. Even if the cited deposition portions were relevant or provided support for the Wayfarer Parties’ arguments—both of which are far from clear—the Wayfarer Parties have not even attempted to argue that the entire deposition was relevant. Nor could they. The conclusion is inescapable that the Wayfarer Parties filed gratuitous amounts of irrelevant pages so that, if Lively moved for continued sealing of the irrelevant pages, the Wayfarer Parties could then use Lively’s response for their own public-relations purposes. The Court has not only the power but also the responsibility to step in. /fn 2/

/FN 2/ 2 The Wayfarer Parties’ actions follow a pattern of using filings on the docket as an opportunity to litigate this case in the press rather than in court. The Court has already stricken from the record prior filings made by the Wayfarer Parties for the improper purpose of “invit[ing] a press uproar.” Dkt. No. 220. The Court has likewise disregarded as improper attachments to other filings. See Dkt. No. 296 at 5.

...

The test is whether the Wayfarer Parties’ filing itself was abusive or improper. And, given that there could have been no proper reason for the Wayfarer Parties to have filed an entire transcript when only a few lines were even arguably relevant, Lively has demonstrated that the Wayfarer Parties have abused this Court’s docket. Finally, the Wayfarer Parties explain that it is “routine for the Court to consider deposition testimony in connection with discovery disputes.” Id. It is not routine, however, for parties to attach an entire confidential deposition transcript when citing only limited portions of that transcript involving only a few lines of text in order to put the other side and the Court to the burden of justifying continued sealing.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.582.0.pdf

Note the court calling out Fritz for not even answering the right question in his response letter, and also explaining that the 2 pages Fritz cited to from the deposition didn't even help them make their point that there was no evidence of a smear because Lively refused to reveal information that was provided to her in confidence by counsel.  So the transcript gets struck and in general Fritz et al get a total smackdown.  Again.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  
 [/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