Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fritz responds to the motion to strike Lively's depo: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.576.0.pdf

Why even bother? Liman is going to grant her motion, right before he asks Gottlieb to join him on his family vacation at the beach house.

Dp, but right again. Liman is such a joke of a judge.

Aww, look at you, thinking this is bias and not actually a wholly sound decision. Keep thinking Wayfarer has great lawyers and is just been badly mistreated by the judge, that's really working out well for you.

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Retailiation

So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

The pro-BL supporter took a break and it was so nice to talk in this thread without her, but I guess she's back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fritz responds to the motion to strike Lively's depo: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.576.0.pdf

Why even bother? Liman is going to grant her motion, right before he asks Gottlieb to join him on his family vacation at the beach house.

Dp, but right again. Liman is such a joke of a judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perez has gone loco.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.577.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.578.0.pdf



https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.579.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.580.0.pdf

lmaooo. How do we think Liman is going to react?

I bet he's never been called sexy before in a filing.

I find it funnier thinking of Hudson or Gottlieb firing off an indignant motion to strike. The humanity!

What he should do is sanction Hilton. Those filing are not appropriate.

I think if they were remarks against someone else, the judge might do something. But as long as the criticism is pointed specifically at the judge, I think it will roll off of him and he knows that he's expected to let it roll off of him.

That doesn't mean Liman will grant him any of the relief he asked if it's not warranted. Anyone who says Liman is biased here is bananas because Hilton has thrown the wildest insults at him and yet Liman still (within hours of receiving a filing complaining about unredacted residential addresses from Hilton) immediately sealed some pleadings containing residential addresses and also required Hudson to prove that she had sent Hilton unsealed pleadings needed to understand and respond to her filing. He took these actions pretty immediately, and they benefitted Hilton. So anyone who says Liman is biased isn't really looking.

That said, Hilton has used ChatGPT and filed two pleadings so far with hallucinated cases. So I don't think he's going to win on the *substance* of any of the pleadings against him.

I am PP above and I am the poster who has made posts before about being right about things other posters here have been wrong about (PO being granted for Lively, dismissal of Baldoni's complaint, etc.).

However, I was totally wrong in my comment above, because the judge just filed this order (re Hilton): "ORDER: Recently, a number of filings in this case have included intemperate language and personal attacks against parties, their counsel, and the Court. All individuals filing documents in this case whether represented or not are advised that they shall not in any submission to this Court use language that is disrespectful of the parties, their counsel, or the Court. This includes, but is not limited to, using demeaning nicknames for parties or their counsel or accusing the Court of being in words or in substance biased, criminal, or corrupt. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 8/8/2025) (ks) (Entered: 08/08/2025)"

I thought Liman would sit back and take it but apparently he is not down with that ish.

On the other hand, I was absolutely right that Liman would strike the filing of Lively's entire deposition transcript. ha ha.

It's so beautiful:

"[Fritz's] Letter [for Wayfarer] broadly asserts that there is no evidence the Wayfarer Parties, Bryan Freedman, or his firm have participated in a smear campaign against Lively. Dkt. No. 538. For support, the Letter quotes one fragment of one sentence from Lively’s deposition. Id. In the deposition, Lively testifies that she believes that the Wayfarer Parties have retaliated against her for reporting harassment by engaging in an ongoing smear campaign, but she (appropriately) refuses to reveal information disclosed to her in confidence by her counsel. See Dkt. No. 538-1 at 201:14–202:23. The Letter also includes as an attachment the entire uncertified 292-page transcript of Lively’s deposition. Id.

Lively now moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and the Court’s inherent power to strike the attachment on the grounds that “there is no conceivable legal purpose to file the whole transcript.” Dkt. No. 540. Lively argues that the Wayfarer Parties have included the entire transcript solely for strategic media and public-relations purposes. Specifically, given the Court’s individual practices regarding sealed materials, the Wayfarer Parties’ decision has put Lively in the position of “defend[ing] the continued sealing of the transcript.” Id. Lively contends the Wayfarer Parties have done so in order to “advance a false narrative that Ms. Lively is afraid of her deposition testimony becoming public, which is entirely untrue.” Id.

The Court agrees that inclusion of the entire deposition transcript served no proper purpose and accordingly grants the motion to strike....

The Wayfarer Parties’ attachment of the entire, nearly 300-page deposition—after citing only two pages of it in the Letter—served no proper litigation purpose and instead appears to have been intended to burden Lively (and as a result, the Court) and to invite public speculation and scandal. Even if the cited deposition portions were relevant or provided support for the Wayfarer Parties’ arguments—both of which are far from clear—the Wayfarer Parties have not even attempted to argue that the entire deposition was relevant. Nor could they. The conclusion is inescapable that the Wayfarer Parties filed gratuitous amounts of irrelevant pages so that, if Lively moved for continued sealing of the irrelevant pages, the Wayfarer Parties could then use Lively’s response for their own public-relations purposes. The Court has not only the power but also the responsibility to step in. /fn 2/

/FN 2/ 2 The Wayfarer Parties’ actions follow a pattern of using filings on the docket as an opportunity to litigate this case in the press rather than in court. The Court has already stricken from the record prior filings made by the Wayfarer Parties for the improper purpose of “invit[ing] a press uproar.” Dkt. No. 220. The Court has likewise disregarded as improper attachments to other filings. See Dkt. No. 296 at 5.

...

The test is whether the Wayfarer Parties’ filing itself was abusive or improper. And, given that there could have been no proper reason for the Wayfarer Parties to have filed an entire transcript when only a few lines were even arguably relevant, Lively has demonstrated that the Wayfarer Parties have abused this Court’s docket. Finally, the Wayfarer Parties explain that it is “routine for the Court to consider deposition testimony in connection with discovery disputes.” Id. It is not routine, however, for parties to attach an entire confidential deposition transcript when citing only limited portions of that transcript involving only a few lines of text in order to put the other side and the Court to the burden of justifying continued sealing.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.582.0.pdf

Note the court calling out Fritz for not even answering the right question in his response letter, and also explaining that the 2 pages Fritz cited to from the deposition didn't even help them make their point that there was no evidence of a smear because Lively refused to reveal information that was provided to her in confidence by counsel. So the transcript gets struck and in general Fritz et al get a total smackdown. Again. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perez has gone loco.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.577.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.578.0.pdf



https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.579.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.580.0.pdf

lmaooo. How do we think Liman is going to react?

I bet he's never been called sexy before in a filing.

I find it funnier thinking of Hudson or Gottlieb firing off an indignant motion to strike. The humanity!

What he should do is sanction Hilton. Those filing are not appropriate.

I think if they were remarks against someone else, the judge might do something. But as long as the criticism is pointed specifically at the judge, I think it will roll off of him and he knows that he's expected to let it roll off of him.

That doesn't mean Liman will grant him any of the relief he asked if it's not warranted. Anyone who says Liman is biased here is bananas because Hilton has thrown the wildest insults at him and yet Liman still (within hours of receiving a filing complaining about unredacted residential addresses from Hilton) immediately sealed some pleadings containing residential addresses and also required Hudson to prove that she had sent Hilton unsealed pleadings needed to understand and respond to her filing. He took these actions pretty immediately, and they benefitted Hilton. So anyone who says Liman is biased isn't really looking.

That said, Hilton has used ChatGPT and filed two pleadings so far with hallucinated cases. So I don't think he's going to win on the *substance* of any of the pleadings against him.

I am PP above and I am the poster who has made posts before about being right about things other posters here have been wrong about (PO being granted for Lively, dismissal of Baldoni's complaint, etc.).

However, I was totally wrong in my comment above, because the judge just filed this order (re Hilton): "ORDER: Recently, a number of filings in this case have included intemperate language and personal attacks against parties, their counsel, and the Court. All individuals filing documents in this case whether represented or notare advised that they shall not in any submission to this Court use language that is disrespectful of the parties, their counsel, or the Court. This includes, but is not limited to, using demeaning nicknames for parties or their counsel or accusing the Court of being in words or in substance biased, criminal, or corrupt. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 8/8/2025) (ks) (Entered: 08/08/2025)"

I thought Liman would sit back and take it but apparently he is not down with that ish.

On the other hand, I was absolutely right that Liman would strike the filing of Lively's entire deposition transcript. ha ha.

This includes, but is not limited to, using demeaning nicknames for parties or their counsel or accusing the Court of being in words or in substance biased, criminal, or corrupt.

Well, at least that leaves room to refer to them as sexy and cuties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perez has gone loco.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.577.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.578.0.pdf



https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.579.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.580.0.pdf

lmaooo. How do we think Liman is going to react?

I bet he's never been called sexy before in a filing.

I find it funnier thinking of Hudson or Gottlieb firing off an indignant motion to strike. The humanity!

What he should do is sanction Hilton. Those filing are not appropriate.

I think if they were remarks against someone else, the judge might do something. But as long as the criticism is pointed specifically at the judge, I think it will roll off of him and he knows that he's expected to let it roll off of him.

That doesn't mean Liman will grant him any of the relief he asked if it's not warranted. Anyone who says Liman is biased here is bananas because Hilton has thrown the wildest insults at him and yet Liman still (within hours of receiving a filing complaining about unredacted residential addresses from Hilton) immediately sealed some pleadings containing residential addresses and also required Hudson to prove that she had sent Hilton unsealed pleadings needed to understand and respond to her filing. He took these actions pretty immediately, and they benefitted Hilton. So anyone who says Liman is biased isn't really looking.

That said, Hilton has used ChatGPT and filed two pleadings so far with hallucinated cases. So I don't think he's going to win on the *substance* of any of the pleadings against him.

I am PP above and I am the poster who has made posts before about being right about things other posters here have been wrong about (PO being granted for Lively, dismissal of Baldoni's complaint, etc.).

However, I was totally wrong in my comment above, because the judge just filed this order (re Hilton): "ORDER: Recently, a number of filings in this case have included intemperate language and personal attacks against parties, their counsel, and the Court. All individuals filing documents in this case whether represented or notare advised that they shall not in any submission to this Court use language that is disrespectful of the parties, their counsel, or the Court. This includes, but is not limited to, using demeaning nicknames for parties or their counsel or accusing the Court of being in words or in substance biased, criminal, or corrupt. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 8/8/2025) (ks) (Entered: 08/08/2025)"

I thought Liman would sit back and take it but apparently he is not down with that ish.

LMAO, 5-4-3-2-1 until Perez posts a new video... ME, INTEMPERATE???!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perez has gone loco.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.577.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.578.0.pdf



https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.579.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.580.0.pdf

lmaooo. How do we think Liman is going to react?

I bet he's never been called sexy before in a filing.

I find it funnier thinking of Hudson or Gottlieb firing off an indignant motion to strike. The humanity!

What he should do is sanction Hilton. Those filing are not appropriate.

I think if they were remarks against someone else, the judge might do something. But as long as the criticism is pointed specifically at the judge, I think it will roll off of him and he knows that he's expected to let it roll off of him.

That doesn't mean Liman will grant him any of the relief he asked if it's not warranted. Anyone who says Liman is biased here is bananas because Hilton has thrown the wildest insults at him and yet Liman still (within hours of receiving a filing complaining about unredacted residential addresses from Hilton) immediately sealed some pleadings containing residential addresses and also required Hudson to prove that she had sent Hilton unsealed pleadings needed to understand and respond to her filing. He took these actions pretty immediately, and they benefitted Hilton. So anyone who says Liman is biased isn't really looking.

That said, Hilton has used ChatGPT and filed two pleadings so far with hallucinated cases. So I don't think he's going to win on the *substance* of any of the pleadings against him.

I am PP above and I am the poster who has made posts before about being right about things other posters here have been wrong about (PO being granted for Lively, dismissal of Baldoni's complaint, etc.).

However, I was totally wrong in my comment above, because the judge just filed this order (re Hilton): "ORDER: Recently, a number of filings in this case have included intemperate language and personal attacks against parties, their counsel, and the Court. All individuals filing documents in this case whether represented or notare advised that they shall not in any submission to this Court use language that is disrespectful of the parties, their counsel, or the Court. This includes, but is not limited to, using demeaning nicknames for parties or their counsel or accusing the Court of being in words or in substance biased, criminal, or corrupt. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 8/8/2025) (ks) (Entered: 08/08/2025)"

I thought Liman would sit back and take it but apparently he is not down with that ish.

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Blake lively accused Justin of sexual harassment? Remember? You might not because it’s been months and months and all they do is subpoena random content creators who are so inconsequential that they assume they don’t have the means to fight back.

It is just so clear if there was any sexual harassment, there would be subpoenas of other women involved, subpoenas of crew members who are witnesses, but none of that. They seem completely obsessed with trying to find some tiny content creator with a smoking gun and it’s been months and they’ve found nothing.

Meanwhile, even the mainstream media seems to have turned on Blake. I’m seeing us and people in page 6 now with negative headlines about her.

Dude, we're only seeing the subpoenas that are getting fought, because they're bringing MTQs. We are not seeing subpoenas for info where the non-party is handing over info. So the likeliest conclusion here is that the other women/people who have information about the harassment are actually ... gasp! ... producing the relevant information to Lively!

Pro tip: Lively's SH claims actually remain on the docket and are actually live claims! Remember when Justin Baldoni's entire case got dismissed?

Remember when Blake lively accused Justin of sexual harassment? Remember? You might not because it’s been months and months and all they do is subpoena random content creators who are so inconsequential that they assume they don’t have the means to fight back.

It is just so clear if there was any sexual harassment, there would be subpoenas of other women involved, subpoenas of crew members who are witnesses, but none of that. They seem completely obsessed with trying to find some tiny content creator with a smoking gun and it’s been months and they’ve found nothing.

Meanwhile, even the mainstream media seems to have turned on Blake. I’m seeing us and people in page 6 now with negative headlines about her.

Anonymous wrote:Hilton has also bashed Lively's attorneys as unethical and incompetent. Not even sure if the judge can sanction a pro se, non party. To me the smart move for team Lively is to just ignore those parts and not engage with that stuff. It's what he wants. It was already kind of weird they said something about asking Hilton for attorney's fees. I don't think it would be a good move to ask for sanctions or to strike his letters. Just ask for the discovery and make a move if he's ordered to produce it and doesn't.

I agree Hilton is digging his own grave here and that everyone involved should probably just let him. It's clear to everyone he's using the court docket and these filings for personal publicity and financial gain, no one has to point this out or convince Liman of it.

My guess would be that Liman will be looking for a way to largely dispose of the Hilton issue so that he can stop dealing with him. Make a definitive ruling on what he must produce and when, get it done, move on. He still might wind up a witness at trial but if they can just move past the discovery issues concerning him, everyone can move on. Hilton is going to try to prolong the debate here because it's personally profitable to him to be able to post ongoing filings and debate over his involvement in the case to his channel. But he's also an idiot so it really shouldn't be that hard to sew this up in the next week or so. His involvement in the case may be relevant (he was identified in the TAG interrogatory, no getting around that) but it's not like he's a central character.

Hilton has also bashed Lively's attorneys as unethical and incompetent. Not even sure if the judge can sanction a pro se, non party. To me the smart move for team Lively is to just ignore those parts and not engage with that stuff. Its what he wants. It was already kind of weird they said something about asking Hilton for attorney's fees. I don't think it would be a good move to ask for sanctions or to strike his letters. Just ask for the discovery and make a move if he's ordered to produce it and doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you think Blake reacted when Justin walked into that deposition room? How do two enemies look at each other in a situation like that? I know this sounds like a fanfiction type question, but with all the mudslinging in the press, I just cannot imagine the two in proximity lol.

TBH after some of the encounters they had (Baldoni crying in her dressing room about the wardrobe, Blake reading off her list of grievances at the all hands, Reynolds screaming at Baldoni) considering they had to work together *and film sex scenes* after those incidents I actually imagine it was fine because they'd been in more awkward situations and she had forewarning he'd be at the depo. I'm sure they were cold to each other and seething inside but I would think neither of them would fall apart. Maybe I am giving them too much credit, haha.

Agree with this and I also assume to the degree it was awkward, that was true for both sides. Like just for instance, I'm sure Blake was asked in the depo about that meeting with Baldoni where he allegedly cried, and I have no doubt that Blake's description of it was not very flattering to Baldoni and may touch on personality traits he has that are less than ideal or could be really cringeworthy when discussed in third person. Listening to that and not being able to say anything or directly correct her was probably uncomfortable for him.

Most people have a range of defense mechanisms to get through something like this. If you've ever been in the room while a divorcing couple is forced to discuss the dissolution, child custody, etc., you've seen them.

If this thing really does go to trial, it's going to be pretty awkward for all involved. Jen Abel will be cross examined on all the critical things she said about Baldoni in texts. Blake will likely have to directly address stuff like the khaleesi text or "never with the teeth" in open court. Baldoni and Heath may have to listen to Sony executives say negative things about how Wayfarer handled the problems on the set. Meanwhile Sony might be caught in a lie or lies about what they knew about conflicts on set and when, and what they did about it.

No one is getting out of this unscathed, I think everyone involved has to be prepared to be humiliated at this point. This is why I'm Team No One and willing to wait until it all comes out to decide what I really think.