Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Bad day in court for Blake. [/quote] Eh, sounds like a mixed bag. The protective order was always a reach -- those are rarely granted. The judge told attorneys on both sides not to try and litigate the case in the media and also threatened that if the parties try to just go at each other in the press, he could move up the court date. It's pretty much what I would have expected going in. Gag orders are very rare, especially in a civil case -- it's not like this is a mob case or something. I am not sure anyone really thought they were going to get the protective order anyway but that's how motions practice works -- you file for the protective order so you can get the arguments against Baldoni's lawyer into the record. It gives Lively's lawyer a chance to stand up and say to the judge "oh you know this guy has been going after her character in the press." It dovetails with their narrative about Baldoni trying to smear her in the press. It also gets Baldoni's lawyer in the courtroom making his arguments which helps them preview his style and see what he does that plays with the judge or doesn't. It's a way to get the parties (well the lawyers -- Lively and Baldoni weren't there) in a room together with the judge to take a temperature. And that might help them with figuring out what tone or slant to take with the amended complaint. Sure it would have been better if the order had been granted but I would actually assume they got most of what they hoped for out of it. The protective order is immaterial to the case itself. It's not like it was a motion to admit or bar certain evidence, or compel testimony, or an MSJ or anything.[/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