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]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]

Yes, I think there's a chance that Freedman gets his hands slapped by the judge for the interrogatory answers, which are clearly intentionally useless.  I think the pro-Baldoni folks are really not concentrating on how bad his legal posture is at this point. What you say in the press does not actually matter. His actual legal filings are a complete mess and he's really baiting a judge that's already reacted badly to his antics.[/quote]

This far, the only motion that Baldoni “lost” is the motion for an extension, the judge has ruled against Blake more frequently, with the most substantive loss being the overbroad subpoena.[/quote]

lol!  You forgot the protective order, where Freedman said parties shouldn’t be able to self-designate AEO but need to come to me first with every doc and get me to agree, and the judge said, nah, and adopted most of the draft PO that Lively’s attorneys submitted. I’m more than happy to argue this out with you again over the next 50 pages. Freedman was so put out during the hearing, his emotional dismay at the thought of this PO being granted by itself shows what a win for Lively it was. Oh his poor hurt feelings!

Anyway, he lost the PO, and more importantly he lost the NYT’s motion for a stay (which he opposed).[/quote]

You could argue he “lost” the protective order for another 50 pages and still be wrong, but that hasn’t stopped you yet and won’t in the future.  The motion to stay discovery he did lose with respect to the NY Times but not the pr firm, which is indicative of how the MTD are likely to go.[/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