Anonymous wrote:I think people have a misunderstanding of the hearing on this thread.

Yes the judge refused to grant the gag order. But he also expressly insisted that both lawyers abide by the ethics rules on trial publicity, which bar lawyers from making extrajudicial statements (basically statements outside of court about court proceedings).

“My expectation is the parties will comply with their ethical obligations,” Liman said. “I don’t expect this case to devolve into satellite litigation over the comments of a lawyer.”

It's not really a win for either party. Lively didn't get her protective order, which would have been a stronger rebuke (but also exceedingly rare in a case like this), but I also expect you will find Freedman is a lot quieter about this case in the coming weeks.

In fact I now think the reason Baldoni amended his complaint last week with all the added emails and texts is because they knew this was coming and wanted to get it all out there and on their website before the judge told them to cut it out. I would be surprised to see anymore "leaks" from Baldoni of video/texts/emails from here on out, and most news is going to come from discovery filings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

I wrote this on page 14 a few days ago. All the way up to 75 page long thread now huh? Prophecy coming true!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Both. The judge agreed to the first but not the second.

Not a win for her in the slightest.

I know it's very important for you to believe that.

DP. Lol how is this a win for her? her motions were denied.

Her protective order was denied. Baldoni's request to have Lively deposed immediately was denied.

Even though her protective order was denied, the judge invoked the ethics rules on extrajudicial statements and threatened to move up the date of the trial if the lawyers attempt to try it in the press.

Notice that Freedman has been very quiet since the hearing yesterday. I don't think I even saw a statement from him after the hearing. If he made one, he didn't say anything of note. Lively's lawyers have successfully gotten him to quiet down.

I think he expected all of this; hence why he rushed to get everything out there before Monday. I don’t think anything noteworthy happened yesterday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

If that’s what they’re planning, it’s not going to give her any points with the public. Remove Baldoni from his own movie. Remove Freedman from his own case.

I think the number of people who know the name of Baldoni's lawyer or would care of he was removed from the case is vanishingly small. Most people are not as obsessed with this case as the people on this thread.

Well that’s not true.

No one outside a fairly narrow group had heard of him before this case. If I asked any member of my extended family who necessary by showing his name and photo, they would have no idea. Kids, adults, my mom, my cousins. They read stuff like US Weekly but they aren't tracking lawyer commentary on this case. They know who the famous actors are, but not the lawyers.

You said most people are not as obsessed with this case as the people on this board. That’s what I was disagreeing with. I don’t know that people know the attorney’s name, but I think plenty are obsessed (for a variety of reasons).

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Both. The judge agreed to the first but not the second.

Not a win for her in the slightest.

I know it's very important for you to believe that.

DP. Lol how is this a win for her? her motions were denied.

Her protective order was denied. Baldoni's request to have Lively deposed immediately was denied.

Even though her protective order was denied, the judge invoked the ethics rules on extrajudicial statements and threatened to move up the date of the trial if the lawyers attempt to try it in the press.

Notice that Freedman has been very quiet since the hearing yesterday. I don't think I even saw a statement from him after the hearing. If he made one, he didn't say anything of note. Lively's lawyers have successfully gotten him to quiet down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

If that’s what they’re planning, it’s not going to give her any points with the public. Remove Baldoni from his own movie. Remove Freedman from his own case.

I think the number of people who know the name of Baldoni's lawyer or would care of he was removed from the case is vanishingly small. Most people are not as obsessed with this case as the people on this thread.

Well that’s not true.

No one outside a fairly narrow group had heard of him before this case. If I asked any member of my extended family who necessary by showing his name and photo, they would have no idea. Kids, adults, my mom, my cousins. They read stuff like US Weekly but they aren't tracking lawyer commentary on this case. They know who the famous actors are, but not the lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Both. The judge agreed to the first but not the second.

Not a win for her in the slightest.

I know it's very important for you to believe that.

DP. Lol how is this a win for her? her motions were denied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Both. The judge agreed to the first but not the second.

Not a win for her in the slightest.

I know it's very important for you to believe that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Both. The judge agreed to the first but not the second.

Not a win for her in the slightest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Both. The judge agreed to the first but not the second.

Anonymous wrote:What was her actual request? I've read mixed reports on this thread and elsewhere.

Was it "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman at this time" or "I don't want to be deposed by Freedman ever"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

If that’s what they’re planning, it’s not going to give her any points with the public. Remove Baldoni from his own movie. Remove Freedman from his own case.

I think the number of people who know the name of Baldoni's lawyer or would care of he was removed from the case is vanishingly small. Most people are not as obsessed with this case as the people on this thread.

Well that’s not true.

No one outside a fairly narrow group had heard of him before this case. If I asked any member of my extended family who necessary by showing his name and photo, they would have no idea. Kids, adults, my mom, my cousins. They read stuff like US Weekly but they aren't tracking lawyer commentary on this case. They know who the famous actors are, but not the lawyers.

DP. It doesn’t matter. Most people had never heard of justin before this case. The headline will be that she wanted yet another non standard prima Donna accommodation.