Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all. Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel. And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior. Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions. I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children. After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call? And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb? If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf

Can you not read? Gottlieb would not agree that the claims would be dropped with prejudice. Freedman would not consent that they be dropped without prejudice. That’s an impasse.

Win for Blake IMO. She doesn't have to hand over private information to Brian Freedman, who would no doubt blast that in public. She's protecting her sanity and her family's. I don't blame her at all. Justin is taking a page from the Johnny Depp playbook and would've exploited her mental health. It's disgusting.









lol jk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case was such a massive misstep for Blake. Most people are not following the case as closely as we are on this thread and the headlines make it seem like she is dropping the case or backing down - the comments from the People story and other outlets that are usually friendly to her are absolutely brutal.

I cannot fathom what she thought was going to happen in bringing this case forward. She has lost her biggest asset, which is her relationship with Taylor Swift. It’s one thing not to be seen with her anymore, that would’ve done some damage, but knowing that they actually aren’t friends anymore, it’s just going to be hard to recover from that.

Blake Brown is on clearance shelves at target and doesn’t look like it’s going to be restocked. She’s trying to spin that as it selling out but that’s simply not the case.

This is a masterclass in how to dismantle a career.

+1. And it was all self induced. Crazy.

They did it because similar bullying and scams have worked in the past. That evil M.O. works until someone well-funded and with receipts bravely fights back.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't sound like she's dropping it, though. Her legal team says she's keeping the emotional distress claim but consolidating it within other claims. Which means they still intend to argue emotional distress.

Her legal team didn't say this at all. That is speculation on your part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all. Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel. And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior. Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions. I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children. After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call? And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb? If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf

Responding to myself to say, Gottlieb's story as related in his letter tracks. I got a docket notification of Fritz/Freedman's MTC at 5:37 EST yesterday and the conference call per Gottlieb was at 4:30 EST. This MTC was pre-loaded and ready to go, and apparently Freedman didn't raise that on the call at all.

Gottlieb's Sunday night email clearly left this in Freedman's court to raise during the call if he objected to dismissal without prejudice (which is fairly standard when one party drops claims before the SOL runs out tbh). So why did Freedman have a whole MTC drafted and ready to go and not raise the issue at all during the call?

I can see why Lively would not want to produce medical records to this nutball obsessed with PR and honestly think he needs to be removed from the case for the parties to make any progress with one another.

Judge Liman not mincing around but also not getting involved. Denies the MTC and basically tells the parties to work it out amongst themselves, noting that if the parties cannot agree on whether to withdraw with or without prejudice, Lively needs to submit the request via a new motion: "The motion to compel at Dkt. Nos. 261 and 262 is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn. Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively’s tenth and eleventh causes of action . . . the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal. The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion. For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress."

A bit of a rejection to both sides, but I think Gottlieb is building a narrative that Freedman is abusing the docket and Liman isn't biting every time. Doesn't mean he won't bite again, though.

Can not imagine what the next call between the parties to discuss the withdrawal of these claims is going to be like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all. Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel. And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior. Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions. I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children. After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call? And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb? If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf

Responding to myself to say, Gottlieb's story as related in his letter tracks. I got a docket notification of Fritz/Freedman's MTC at 5:37 EST yesterday and the conference call per Gottlieb was at 4:30 EST. This MTC was pre-loaded and ready to go, and apparently Freedman didn't raise that on the call at all.

Gottlieb's Sunday night email clearly left this in Freedman's court to raise during the call if he objected to dismissal without prejudice (which is fairly standard when one party drops claims before the SOL runs out tbh). So why did Freedman have a whole MTC drafted and ready to go and not raise the issue at all during the call?

I can see why Lively would not want to produce medical records to this nutball obsessed with PR and honestly think he needs to be removed from the case for the parties to make any progress with one another.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all. Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel. And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior. Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions. I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children. After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call? And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb? If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf

Responding to myself to say, Gottlieb's story as related in his letter tracks. I got a docket notification of Fritz/Freedman's MTC at 5:37 EST yesterday and the conference call per Gottlieb was at 4:30 EST. This MTC was pre-loaded and ready to go, and apparently Freedman didn't raise that on the call at all.

Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all. Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel. And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior. Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions. I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children. After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call? And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb? If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/06/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-claim-drop-dispute-1236421032/

Blake Lively Insists Not Dropping Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni, Despite What His Lawyers Say & Her Lawyers Seem To Have Said

She is so dumb.

She’s a lawyers dream. Although I think it’s borderline unethical when lawyers take cases like hers

Agree. She has the world's worst attorneys. Didn't they explain ANYTHING to her on how this whole case would go down.

As comments have echoed for hundreds of pages: Blake and Ryan are very stupid and they’re being scammed and milked by all these “experts” and attorneys around them. Leeches feasting on two has-beens.

I used to work at Willkie. I’m not saying they have a good case here, but they handle RR’s commercial work/investments and I assume took this case (1) to preserve that relationship and (2) obviously because it’s lucrative. But I think they are deferring to them to the point that they’re doing some dumb stuff because of (1).

Agree, but will say that I have not been impressed with Gottlieb’s work here at all. A big part of a litigation partner’s job is convincing a client to do the right thing. His litigation strategy appears to be entirely client driven.

Disagree, as someone very familiar with his other work. I think the problem is that he's laser focused on some of the underlying issues that are among his pet projects, and this has left the team flatfooted on the PR front and not really understanding the particular celeb landscape here. They've had to be so reactive on the PR side because Freedman is so much better at it, and I think it's because Gottlieb is focused on some specific legal issues and building a case around those. They've been moderately better since Lively brought on the crisis specialist but the advantage Freedman has is that he is, on his own, very smart at the PR game -- he's not relying on Balodni's PR team, he's just doing his thing and it's very effective. Gottlieb has handled high profile cases but to my knowledge never had to participate in this kind of tabloid volley. He's been outmatched on that front.

I link Lively's team is betting on gaining more of the upper hand as they get deeper into discovery and pre-trial motions. IMO, their motions have been much better written and argued and I think Freedman has likely annoyed Liman with his affidavit and refusal to address the group pleading issue prior to the MTDs being decided. Liman's order striking Freedman's affidavit was... testy.

How are you very familiar with Gottlieb’s prior work as you mentioned?

Re liman I don’t think I’d make much of Limans ‘testy’ response. It has no effect and judges don’t get to make decisions based on their personal feelings.

I am a DC lawyer who works in an adjacent area. He's handled a couple cases that are well known to people who work on political law circles -- repped Comet PingPong when there was that stupid online rumor about them fronting a sex trafficking ring, and repped a couple Georgia poll workers against Giuliani's defamation. I don't know him personally but have seen him speak and know people who have worked with him.

Judges can run out of patience with attorneys and that's generally not good in protracted litigation, especially not if it goes to trial. I am sure Liman strives for neutrality but if he starts to view Freedman's legal arguments with suspicion or thinks Freedman is not working in good faith, that will not be beneficial for Baldoni.

Though that might be why they are bring Garofalo in now even though she's a trial specialist and they aren't there yet. She may handle any high stakes hearings coming up if they think Freedman has spent some of his good will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/06/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-claim-drop-dispute-1236421032/

Blake Lively Insists Not Dropping Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni, Despite What His Lawyers Say & Her Lawyers Seem To Have Said

She is so dumb.

She’s a lawyers dream. Although I think it’s borderline unethical when lawyers take cases like hers

Agree. She has the world's worst attorneys. Didn't they explain ANYTHING to her on how this whole case would go down.

As comments have echoed for hundreds of pages: Blake and Ryan are very stupid and they’re being scammed and milked by all these “experts” and attorneys around them. Leeches feasting on two has-beens.

I used to work at Willkie. I’m not saying they have a good case here, but they handle RR’s commercial work/investments and I assume took this case (1) to preserve that relationship and (2) obviously because it’s lucrative. But I think they are deferring to them to the point that they’re doing some dumb stuff because of (1).

Agree, but will say that I have not been impressed with Gottlieb’s work here at all. A big part of a litigation partner’s job is convincing a client to do the right thing. His litigation strategy appears to be entirely client driven.

Disagree, as someone very familiar with his other work. I think the problem is that he's laser focused on some of the underlying issues that are among his pet projects, and this has left the team flatfooted on the PR front and not really understanding the particular celeb landscape here. They've had to be so reactive on the PR side because Freedman is so much better at it, and I think it's because Gottlieb is focused on some specific legal issues and building a case around those. They've been moderately better since Lively brought on the crisis specialist but the advantage Freedman has is that he is, on his own, very smart at the PR game -- he's not relying on Balodni's PR team, he's just doing his thing and it's very effective. Gottlieb has handled high profile cases but to my knowledge never had to participate in this kind of tabloid volley. He's been outmatched on that front.

I link Lively's team is betting on gaining more of the upper hand as they get deeper into discovery and pre-trial motions. IMO, their motions have been much better written and argued and I think Freedman has likely annoyed Liman with his affidavit and refusal to address the group pleading issue prior to the MTDs being decided. Liman's order striking Freedman's affidavit was... testy.

How are you very familiar with Gottlieb’s prior work as you mentioned?

Re liman I don’t think I’d make much of Limans ‘testy’ response. It has no effect and judges don’t get to make decisions based on their personal feelings.

Anonymous wrote:People, the return of the “whose the leaker” posts is intended to be a distraction from the fact that Blake is dropping an important part of her case. Don’t fall for it.

Totally agree. It’s like the PR shill services contract ended EOM May so they had a few days off, while BL debated whether to extend the work into June.

They got the greenlight for an extension, and started fresh again yesterday with the usual long winded fact twisting blather. And then of course the partner who always responds ‘I agree! Or ‘good point!’

It doesn't sound like she's dropping it, though. Her legal team says she's keeping the emotional distress claim but consolidating it within other claims. Which means they still intend to argue emotional distress.

People, the return of the “whose the leaker” posts is intended to be a distraction from the fact that Blake is dropping an important part of her case. Don’t fall for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/06/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-claim-drop-dispute-1236421032/

Blake Lively Insists Not Dropping Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni, Despite What His Lawyers Say & Her Lawyers Seem To Have Said

She is so dumb.

She’s a lawyers dream. Although I think it’s borderline unethical when lawyers take cases like hers

Agree. She has the world's worst attorneys. Didn't they explain ANYTHING to her on how this whole case would go down.

As comments have echoed for hundreds of pages: Blake and Ryan are very stupid and they’re being scammed and milked by all these “experts” and attorneys around them. Leeches feasting on two has-beens.

I used to work at Willkie. I’m not saying they have a good case here, but they handle RR’s commercial work/investments and I assume took this case (1) to preserve that relationship and (2) obviously because it’s lucrative. But I think they are deferring to them to the point that they’re doing some dumb stuff because of (1).

Agree, but will say that I have not been impressed with Gottlieb’s work here at all. A big part of a litigation partner’s job is convincing a client to do the right thing. His litigation strategy appears to be entirely client driven.

Disagree, as someone very familiar with his other work. I think the problem is that he's laser focused on some of the underlying issues that are among his pet projects, and this has left the team flatfooted on the PR front and not really understanding the particular celeb landscape here. They've had to be so reactive on the PR side because Freedman is so much better at it, and I think it's because Gottlieb is focused on some specific legal issues and building a case around those. They've been moderately better since Lively brought on the crisis specialist but the advantage Freedman has is that he is, on his own, very smart at the PR game -- he's not relying on Balodni's PR team, he's just doing his thing and it's very effective. Gottlieb has handled high profile cases but to my knowledge never had to participate in this kind of tabloid volley. He's been outmatched on that front.

I link Lively's team is betting on gaining more of the upper hand as they get deeper into discovery and pre-trial motions. IMO, their motions have been much better written and argued and I think Freedman has likely annoyed Liman with his affidavit and refusal to address the group pleading issue prior to the MTDs being decided. Liman's order striking Freedman's affidavit was... testy.

A good litigator doesn’t get distracted by other issues “that are their pet projects.” Hard to get the upper hand when you have to drop your primary claim for damages for lack of proof. Honestly beginning to think this may all end
end with the Lively team being sanctioned.