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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The pro-Baldoni people are so hopeful about the MTDs, as though anything good can happen there for them. The best outcome for them there would be NOTHING, or just dismissals without prejudice with vague language from the judge about how there is enough in the complaint to comprehend a claim if repled properly.

Meanwhile, Freedman is basically defying the judge by (1) submitting non-responsive interrogatory answers, and late at that, in defiance of his refusal to extend; (2) not submitting an amended complaint before his deadline ran out, despite the court’s encouragement of him multiple times to do so; and (3) now making statements that Lively’s testimony should be televised, even though that isn’t done at all in federal court (only exception being audio broadcasts of the Supreme Court). I don’t really understand what kind of clown show Freedman is running, but if he’s trying to test Liman’s patience, he’s hitting the right notes. 👏 [/quote]

Blake’s lawyer’s interview with People magazine was a publicity stunt, just like pretty much everything Blake has been doing lately (Seth Meyers’s, that horrendous time speech where she shamelessly used her own mother). All BF did was match their energy. Gottlieb said Blake will testify. Ok and water is wet. It’s the epitome of a non story put out for PR purposes. Of course she’s going to testify, she’s the plaintiff. So when BF comes back with well she’s been testifying since she tried out for this part (very clever by the way, as he’s calling her entire lawsuit “acting” or “fake) it should come as no surprise. In the words of Blake’s dragons, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.[/quote]

I don’t really understand some of this word salad and it really isn’t responsive to my list of recent questionable actions by Freedman, but it seems that you are doubling down on your bets with him, so … we’ll see how that turns out for you.

How like him, though, to suggest someplace flashy like Madison Square Garden; however, I don’t think even that arena is big enough to contain his ego.[/quote]

I’m surprised you’re having trouble with my “word salad” since BL is the queen of them. But let me decode, I felt you were cherry-picking and suggesting that BF just randomly made the statement about televising Blake’s deposition out of the blue and completely unprovoked. You just completely failed to mention that BF was actually responding to Blake’s lawyer’s exclusive interview with people mag in which he said lots of misleading things. BF has been pretty quiet lately but they’re poking the bear. [/quote]

I have never in my entire legal career read wholly non-responsive interrogatory answers like Freedman filed, late (in defiance of the court’s denial of an extension), where some of the questions clearly simply asked for info that the PR rep was entitled to, like, who said these things from your complaint, or what are the facts behind the allegations in your complaint, and instead offered nonsense like “uh what does ‘you’ mean again?”  Interested in hearing from other lawyers whether they find “the bear”’s ROG responses normal here. I do not. [/quote]

Not a litigator but it was very strange. I would expect basic information to be provided like what were the defamatory statements.[/quote]

A lawyer from Reddit that I have recommended here (who is generally pro-Lively but not anti-Freedman afaict) has noted that this is Bryan Freedman’s general MO.  Strike hard in the press, and look to fill out facts you have alleged in your complaint from discovery — meaning that he often doesn’t have the requisite facts he would need to support his claims when he first files them, as he is actually required/expected to do.  So he just may not have the information he is being asked for in the ROGs, in which case he wants as long as possible and up through July when doc discovery is expected to be substantially completed before he would want to file an amended complaint. It explains his delay. He couldn’t substantiate his own complaint and needed more time to try to collect more facts, if possible. [/quote]

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. Blake’s team brought a case about a smear campaign and included evidence in their own complaint contradicting the existence of a smear campaign (the chart showing sentiment turned negative towards Lively before Jed Wallace was hired). They’re currently on a fishing expedition “hoping” to find evidence of a smear campaign in discovery.[/quote]

Given that your boy Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD on the smear campaign allegations and given the texts where Baldoni’s PR reps say stuff like “you know we can bury anyone,” seems like the smear campaign allegations will survive at least for now, whereas basically all of Freedman’s claims, including his most lucrative ones against the NYT, are up for dismissal.

I agree that Lively is looking for more info re how the smear campaign worked. That’s what discovery is for. But those texts are enough to show a plan existed for such a campaign and steps were taken in furtherance of it.  In other words, Livelt can substantiate the basics for a retaliation campaign, whereas Freedman cannot substantiate a defamation claim against Lively’s PR rep given the absolute lack of facts in his responses. This may help support her MTD and lend weight to granting it with prejudice, but I guess he isn’t worried about that. [/quote]

Nope. You need more than ‘talk’ to substantiate a claim. Case in point-the Orangeman saying he should be the next pope. No one took him seriously because he actually has to go thru the process to become pope. He can talk about it all he wants, but nothing becomes actionable until he undergoes the steps to become the pontiff (which of course, he cannot).

So talk is cheap. Lively will need to show evidence of the smear campaign to have a valid claim. Texts and words alone do not substantiate anything.[/quote]

And yet, as I already noted, Freedman hasn’t even filed a MTD. So these claims are going to survive discovery and are here at least through summary judgment, which is more than we know about basically the entirety of Freedman’s current complaint riddled with group pleading problems and insufficient facts.

Let me say that again. All of Lively’s claims (except possibly those against Jed Wallace) will survive discovery because Freedman did not make the effort to move to dismiss a single one of them. Whereas basically ALL of Baldoni’s claims are up for dismissal. Lively won the chance to find more facts in discovery.  Whether or not Freedman will be able to use his discovery finds, if any, will be up to the mercy of the judge. So yes, talk is cheap, let’s see if Freedman will be able to put his money where his very big mouth has been. [/quote]

The case would’ve survived regardless. Most of these MTDs are baseless and at best will be dismissed without prejudice and need to be refiled with amendments. This is just part of the game and should be expected. [/quote]

Wrong. Your “at most” is actually the starting point for many of these claims due to Freedman’s group pleading problem infecting the entire amended complaint.  The judge has hinted at this already and said a new amended complaint will be required, and instead of addressing these concerns Freedman has chosen to sit on his hands and whine to People magazine. [/quote]

You’re being repetitive. If the complaint is dismissed due to group pleading, it will be without prejudice and he will refile. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. [/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