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]I haven't read the decision yet, but, good for Liman, I was almost thinking he was going to give it to them.

As for the next thing Gottlieb requests, it looks like a doozy. First they want to strike the transcript of Lively's depo from the docket (I think they raise good points here, there was no need to post the entire, unverified transcript when citing two lines) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.540.0.pdf

Then, a big motion for sanctions against Freedman for being a big meanie  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.546.0.pdf

The docket has a zillion exhibits to TMZ, etc (#547) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Perhaps Liman will grant the motion to strike with a harsh rebuke, in lieu of actually granting the motion for sanctions, consistent with what he's done in the past.[/quote]

I think they overstepped again.   Proper motion would be to keep depo under seal.[/quote]

This guy was totally wrong.  Nope.  Actually a pretty good idea to move to strike it, and it builds the narrative toward moving for sanctions.  Wrong-O.  [/quote]

I understood the Lively side gloating when multiple Baldoni posters were insulting Lively posters as not real lawyers because they had different opinions on the defamation claims, PO, settlement, etc. It's a very bad look though to go back now and just reply to everyone who simply posted a different opinion about every order. Really OTT when this thread has been fairly amicable recently without the usual bots and shills talk. The person above you is literally just posting their opinion in a very respectful way (FTR, I'm the first PP in this chain, who thought Lively's motion to strike raised good points and that the judge would probably grant it with a rebuke, but not grant the sanctions, so I'm mostly "right" too).

Anyway, came to post this, the two lines that were unsealed: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fio1woe7hguhf1.jpeg

A lot of nothing, kind of a similar vibe as when Hudson demanded TAG unseal their list and there was only one content creator on it. This line doesn't really support Wayfarer's point at all, but a lot of posters are misinterpreting this to mean Lively admitted she has no case. It's somewhat good for Lively that out of the entire deposition this was the best thing they could pluck out for this stunt, as I'm sure they'd planned to find some excuse to post the depo in its entirety as soon as it was done. Note the use of the second person - she's answering Freedman directly about what she claims he did to her. That's even tenser than her having to be in the room with Baldoni.[/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