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]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]

They actually are fairly typical of interrogatory responses which is why interrogatories are so useless generally.[/quote]

You're saying this is normal?  What kind of litigation do you do.  I have never seen an interrogatory response like this before:

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify each person You allege Leslie Sloane communicated with regarding the Wayfarer Parties.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
Responding Party incorporates by reference his general objections as if fully set forth in response to this Interrogatory. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case or relevant to the claim or defense of any party. 
Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad to the extent is seeks the identification of each person who “Vision PR, Inc. communicated with regarding [any of] the Wayfarer Parties.” Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague as to “communicated.” [b]In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time. Responding Party states that he is willing to meet and confer with Propounding Party regarding this Interrogatory. [/b]

I don't mean the objections for disproportion, overbreath, and vagueness.  That's normal.  Of the 8 interrogatories submitted in the exhibit, Freedman only sort of answered ONE of them, and submitted responses similar to the above for the rest or responses that merely pointed to their initial disclosures.  I am used to seeing actual attempts at responses following all of the objections -- at worst pointers to other responses, hand waving that the ROG is premature for a rare response here or there, and promises to supplement the response in the future when more is known.  Even with the objections, and even when there are problems with the original request, I am used to seeing some sort of attempt to respond to the question, even if the question must be construed in a way narrow enough to be something that can be answered.  What I am NOT used to seeing is a lawyer not giving any helpful response for 90% of their responses, and for three fourths of them flat out saying that they will not respond at all but you can try to meet and confer with us.  These questions are not crazily overbroad.  Sloane is entitled to know who Freedman thinks she communicated with regarding the matters at issue in the complaint. [/quote]

Where did the lawyer who said that interrogatory responses like these were typical go?  Is anybody on Team Baldoni defending this?  *crickets*[/quote]

No one cares besides you.  When one party asks 100 interrogatories before any discovery takes place, they won’t get answers to some of them.

Tip-  no one wants to hear you drone on and on about this.  [/quote]

Weak sauce, even for you. I am still waiting to hear some lawyer say they have seen responses like this before and they are totes normal, OR for a pro-Baldoner to admit that this seems unusual and bad to them. I can just repost this every few pages like I did with the PO decision. [/quote]

Go ahead, you’ll drone  on and one regardless.  Can never see the forest for the trees.[/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