Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NAG is saying if the court were to rule that  wayfarer had to pay those fees (which sounds unlikely and why others pointed out would be very limited in scope), it would require lively’s team to release details on what they charged and how they got there (how many people were working on this issue, what they were charging etc.) and that widely likely would not want that information release because then people could extrapolate and it would lead to a whole bunch of headlines about what she actually paid these lawyers. [/quote]

I don't get this because this is always true for lawsuits. Had Lively gone to trial and won, she would have had to submit her attorneys fees to the court for damages. This is a standard thing.

The attorneys fees for just Baldoni's lawsuit against her will be just a fraction of what she paid total, so it's unlikely to be an embarrassing number. Especially since her team replied heavily on work by amicus briefs for the 47.1 motion, and Lively didn't pay for those amicus briefs. So if anything this stands to change the narrative that she spent 30 million on legal fees -- the number she would be claiming for the 47.1 motion would be only a small fraction of whatever her total number is.[/quote]

No one said that they would be reporting the whole number, but you can extrapolate. People can figure out roughly how many lawyers were working on different issues and what they’re charging. You are mistaken if you don’t think this would generate a bunch of headlines about exorbitant legal fees that each side paid - people will do anything for clicks.[/quote]

But they are doing that now anyway. People will do that no matter what.

If Lively's lawyers are submitting their bills to the court, it's only because she won her 47.1 motion and they need the court's approval to collect money from the Wayfarer parties. Sure that might lead to posts for click from pro-Baldoni types about her legal costs, but I suspect these would be overshadowed by reports on how Lively won the motion.

Not saying she's going to win, just that NAG's "analysis" here makes zero sense. Sometimes she has interesting takes; this is not one of them. This is stupid and sort of an embarrassing argument for a lawyer to make in public.[/quote]

It’s unlikely that she’s going to win the motion, but even if she does, she’s won a small battle to lose the war - she started with 15 claims, 2 which she voluntarily dropped, the court threw out the 10 including sexual harassment which did not look great for her and you’re delusional to think otherwise. She then settled her case which we looked in increasingly unwinnable after headlines came out that she had perjured herself.

If they get some small fees paid, which is unlikely, she still settled out of court, and the main headlines that people have paid attention to her that she’s settled her case for no money if you’re waiting for some other shoe to drop you will be waiting a long time. [/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