Anonymous wrote:Request for TLDR summary- when judge says “ if Numbers 1 to 4 are no longer at issue, you have won, Mr. Gottlieb,” what are the numbers referencing? Discovery production questions? What is it that Gottlieb will have won?

I took this to mean Garofalo already told them their answer to 1-4 would be “none,” so that’s their “win.” IMHO.

Anonymous wrote:Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.

I engage here in good faith, which is more than I can say for you. This is like at least the fourth campaign that you have conducted to ostracize the Lively supporters and either get them kicked out or make it so no one talks to them so you’ll finally have the pro-Baldoni echo chamber you’ve always wanted.

Also very on brand for the mean girl ostracization club you continue to cultivate here. Grow tf up and participate in give and take discussion.

Anonymous wrote:Request for TLDR summary- when judge says “ if Numbers 1 to 4 are no longer at issue, you have won, Mr. Gottlieb,” what are the numbers referencing? Discovery production questions? What is it that Gottlieb will have won?

It's a separate docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

I guess it's this request: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.974420/gov.uscourts.cacd.974420.1.3.pdf

1-4 is content creator stuff which Garafalo said the answer is zero so Liman said then why fight it. So presumably he will order them to produce those and they will say nothing.
5-8 is the meat of it. #7 is huge.

Request for TLDR summary- when judge says “ if Numbers 1 to 4 are no longer at issue, you have won, Mr. Gottlieb,” what are the numbers referencing? Discovery production questions? What is it that Gottlieb will have won?

Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part: (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest.

Wut? Doesn't seem like "putting the burden on Freedman" would be denying the motion.

I think Liman is going to give Gottlieb some but not all of this. Will allow all of 1-4 (since Garofalo doesn't even seem to contest, just says the answer will be "none"). Will narrow/cut 5-8. Seemed to be redesigning ROG 5 to incorporate Liner responses? Not sure if he will require production of the Liner firm agreements with others like Meghyn Kelly, Hilton, etc - they do seem relevant to the smear issue tbh. AEO!

It's Liner's motion to quash, so I think Liman will deny the motion, as in order Liner Freedman to respond to all of the ROGs to the extent they are not privileged. Liner Freedman wants it totally quashed because they argued it sweeps in attorney client communications, and I think Liman is going to make Freedman actually log everything and specify how each thing is privileged. That's the burden I was referring to.

I don't know that their retainer agreements would be relevant, as they likely predate IEWU movie. Not sure what other agreements there may be.

Ah, you're right about the posture. Sorry about that. I agree that Liman is at least considering having LF produce everything to the extent it is not privileged, but I'm not sure he will really go that far. Logging all that really will be a significant burden on that firm. (And I thought they were short-staffed and outnumbered before lol!) But I kind of do think somebody is going to have to go through all of Freedman's texts and calls somehow? Not sure, maybe he will narrow it more.

Disagree with the comment following yours that they can't get evidence from after the complaint. Liner already ruled such evidence could be relevant back during the Case and Koslow disputed discovery and ordered discovery to be produced for them through February. As Liman indicated during the motion (according to this twitter reporter), if Liner Freedman really had a problem with the dates through which discovery was being sought as relevant, they should have raised that in a Motion to Dismiss. Sorry not sorry. That's why you should hire a real law firm. *shrug*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part: (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest.

Wut? Doesn't seem like "putting the burden on Freedman" would be denying the motion.

I think Liman is going to give Gottlieb some but not all of this. Will allow all of 1-4 (since Garofalo doesn't even seem to contest, just says the answer will be "none"). Will narrow/cut 5-8. Seemed to be redesigning ROG 5 to incorporate Liner responses? Not sure if he will require production of the Liner firm agreements with others like Meghyn Kelly, Hilton, etc - they do seem relevant to the smear issue tbh. AEO!

Until they have some evidence to support the existence of a smear prior to the date they filed the complaint, they should get not discovery for after the complaint was filed.

All lawyers talk to the press about high profile litigation. Gottlieb’s argument borders on the absurd at this point. At least Freedman filed an affidavit about his Taylor intimidation allegations, Gottlieb is allowed to freely slander Freedman without any evidence at all.

It really seems that just a few weeks before the discovery deadline, they have nothing to support their retaliation allegations other than one or two ambiguous texts from Nathan.

Wallace amended complaint is due by midnight tonight.

IMO it was a mistake not to try and dismiss Lively's complaint of defamation carried out through Freedman as part of an ongoing smear campaign including after the commencement of litigation. The claim is so weak that I think Liman might have had to dismiss it, bias notwithstanding. A lawyer saying "my client didn't do that" (even if he was a bit more colorful) isn't defamation, especially not with actual malice! It's pretty clearly Freedman's opinion and he is entitled to believe his client. And Baldoni and Wayfarer are entitled to tell their side of the story to their own attorney. Lively's attorneys are using this to claim things Freedman said, did, and investigated *after commencement of litigation* are relevant to his state of mind for actual malice. It's such sneaky but clever lawyering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part: (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest.

Wut? Doesn't seem like "putting the burden on Freedman" would be denying the motion.

I think Liman is going to give Gottlieb some but not all of this. Will allow all of 1-4 (since Garofalo doesn't even seem to contest, just says the answer will be "none"). Will narrow/cut 5-8. Seemed to be redesigning ROG 5 to incorporate Liner responses? Not sure if he will require production of the Liner firm agreements with others like Meghyn Kelly, Hilton, etc - they do seem relevant to the smear issue tbh. AEO!

Until they have some evidence to support the existence of a smear prior to the date they filed the complaint, they should get not discovery for after the complaint was filed.

All lawyers talk to the press about high profile litigation. Gottlieb’s argument borders on the absurd at this point. At least Freedman filed an affidavit about his Taylor intimidation allegations, Gottlieb is allowed to freely slander Freedman without any evidence at all.

It really seems that just a few weeks before the discovery deadline, they have nothing to support their retaliation allegations other than one or two ambiguous texts from Nathan.

Wallace amended complaint is due by midnight tonight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part: (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest.

Wut? Doesn't seem like "putting the burden on Freedman" would be denying the motion.

I think Liman is going to give Gottlieb some but not all of this. Will allow all of 1-4 (since Garofalo doesn't even seem to contest, just says the answer will be "none"). Will narrow/cut 5-8. Seemed to be redesigning ROG 5 to incorporate Liner responses? Not sure if he will require production of the Liner firm agreements with others like Meghyn Kelly, Hilton, etc - they do seem relevant to the smear issue tbh. AEO!

It's Liner's motion to quash, so I think Liman will deny the motion, as in order Liner Freedman to respond to all of the ROGs to the extent they are not privileged. Liner Freedman wants it totally quashed because they argued it sweeps in attorney client communications, and I think Liman is going to make Freedman actually log everything and specify how each thing is privileged. That's the burden I was referring to.

I don't know that their retainer agreements would be relevant, as they likely predate IEWU movie. Not sure what other agreements there may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part: (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest.

Wut? Doesn't seem like "putting the burden on Freedman" would be denying the motion.

I think Liman is going to give Gottlieb some but not all of this. Will allow all of 1-4 (since Garofalo doesn't even seem to contest, just says the answer will be "none"). Will narrow/cut 5-8. Seemed to be redesigning ROG 5 to incorporate Liner responses? Not sure if he will require production of the Liner firm agreements with others like Meghyn Kelly, Hilton, etc - they do seem relevant to the smear issue tbh. AEO!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Was it taken down? Says “doesn’t exist” when click link- or did I just add virus to my computer?

I think I just messed up the link, don't worry!
This is better https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1mdga0p/judge_rules_motion_to_compel_bfs_firm_transcript/

Thank you! Read it. Takeaway: Perez must be so thankful for this lawsuit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

To be fair to them, their argument is if Freedman is talking to the press, that much is not privileged. However, from the tweets, it sounds like they are requesting more of the underlying information for someone's state of mind (Freedman? Baldoni?) which seems to go to privileged communications and seems like a big ask. Referring to this part: (Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery)

The guy who does the tweets is amazing, but things can be unclear when typing fast (people should not refer to this as a transcript) so hopefully there will be a more formal recap in the press.

I think Liman is going to deny the motion and put the burden on Freedman to tease out what's privileged and release the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Was it taken down? Says “doesn’t exist” when click link- or did I just add virus to my computer?

I think I just messed up the link, don't worry!
This is better https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1mdga0p/judge_rules_motion_to_compel_bfs_firm_transcript/

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Was it taken down? Says “doesn’t exist” when click link- or did I just add virus to my computer?

*readable (reasonable is a matter of debate, haha)