Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.

Dp. The “she is going to sue her lawyers” rumor has been circulating for weeks. It’s pretty clear that mistakes were made- for example case should have been filed in California to strengthen COL argument, but my guess is that she demanded it be filed on NY for her convenience, just as wardrobe fittings took place at her home, for her convenience. The whole Van Zan mess seems to have been to sanitize the text messages for the NYT’s and indeed, there appears to have been more of a scramble to file the lawsuit due to the NYT’s article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be shocked if they were suing lawyers. That would seem really unprecedented and just a terrible PR move as well. The rumors probably started because they’re really unhappy and Ryan probably made a threat. But it’s probably an idle threat.

The rumors likely came from the other side gloating about how stupid they were and what they should really do. I mean, come on, consider your sources are more than a little biased.

They aren't even rumors. Like a lot of what gets reported as "fact" in this case, it's idle speculation online that the Baldoni folks then mention in interviews (not confirming, just noting it's being "discussed online") and that reinforces the idea that it's real. These are fabrications. Lively is not going to sue her lawyers. There's nothing to indicate that she's even unhappy with them. There is no evidence Ryan "made a threat", idle or otherwise. There aren't even reports in tabloids with "a source close to Lively" or whatever. These aren't rumors and they aren't based on anything.

It's disinformation being deliberately seeded and encouraged online. Just like it's all been since the beginning of this stupid saga.

Anonymous wrote:I’d be shocked if they were suing lawyers. That would seem really unprecedented and just a terrible PR move as well. The rumors probably started because they’re really unhappy and Ryan probably made a threat. But it’s probably an idle threat.

The rumors likely came from the other side gloating about how stupid they were and what they should really do. I mean, come on, consider your sources are more than a little biased.

I’d be shocked if they were suing lawyers. That would seem really unprecedented and just a terrible PR move as well. The rumors probably started because they’re really unhappy and Ryan probably made a threat. But it’s probably an idle threat.

Anonymous wrote:The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAG is saying if the court were to rule that wayfarer had to pay those fees (which sounds unlikely and why others pointed out would be very limited in scope), it would require lively’s team to release details on what they charged and how they got there (how many people were working on this issue, what they were charging etc.) and that widely likely would not want that information release because then people could extrapolate and it would lead to a whole bunch of headlines about what she actually paid these lawyers.

I don't get this because this is always true for lawsuits. Had Lively gone to trial and won, she would have had to submit her attorneys fees to the court for damages. This is a standard thing.

The attorneys fees for just Baldoni's lawsuit against her will be just a fraction of what she paid total, so it's unlikely to be an embarrassing number. Especially since her team replied heavily on work by amicus briefs for the 47.1 motion, and Lively didn't pay for those amicus briefs. So if anything this stands to change the narrative that she spent 30 million on legal fees -- the number she would be claiming for the 47.1 motion would be only a small fraction of whatever her total number is.

No one said that they would be reporting the whole number, but you can extrapolate. People can figure out roughly how many lawyers were working on different issues and what they’re charging. You are mistaken if you don’t think this would generate a bunch of headlines about exorbitant legal fees that each side paid - people will do anything for clicks.

But they are doing that now anyway. People will do that no matter what.

If Lively's lawyers are submitting their bills to the court, it's only because she won her 47.1 motion and they need the court's approval to collect money from the Wayfarer parties. Sure that might lead to posts for click from pro-Baldoni types about her legal costs, but I suspect these would be overshadowed by reports on how Lively won the motion.

Not saying she's going to win, just that NAG's "analysis" here makes zero sense. Sometimes she has interesting takes; this is not one of them. This is stupid and sort of an embarrassing argument for a lawyer to make in public.

It’s unlikely that she’s going to win the motion, but even if she does, she’s won a small battle to lose the war - she started with 15 claims, 2 which she voluntarily dropped, the court threw out the 10 including sexual harassment which did not look great for her and you’re delusional to think otherwise. She then settled her case which we looked in increasingly unwinnable after headlines came out that she had perjured herself.

If they get some small fees paid, which is unlikely, she still settled out of court, and the main headlines that people have paid attention to her that she’s settled her case for no money if you’re waiting for some other shoe to drop you will be waiting a long time.

The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAG is saying if the court were to rule that wayfarer had to pay those fees (which sounds unlikely and why others pointed out would be very limited in scope), it would require lively’s team to release details on what they charged and how they got there (how many people were working on this issue, what they were charging etc.) and that widely likely would not want that information release because then people could extrapolate and it would lead to a whole bunch of headlines about what she actually paid these lawyers.

I don't get this because this is always true for lawsuits. Had Lively gone to trial and won, she would have had to submit her attorneys fees to the court for damages. This is a standard thing.

The attorneys fees for just Baldoni's lawsuit against her will be just a fraction of what she paid total, so it's unlikely to be an embarrassing number. Especially since her team replied heavily on work by amicus briefs for the 47.1 motion, and Lively didn't pay for those amicus briefs. So if anything this stands to change the narrative that she spent 30 million on legal fees -- the number she would be claiming for the 47.1 motion would be only a small fraction of whatever her total number is.

No one said that they would be reporting the whole number, but you can extrapolate. People can figure out roughly how many lawyers were working on different issues and what they’re charging. You are mistaken if you don’t think this would generate a bunch of headlines about exorbitant legal fees that each side paid - people will do anything for clicks.

But they are doing that now anyway. People will do that no matter what.

If Lively's lawyers are submitting their bills to the court, it's only because she won her 47.1 motion and they need the court's approval to collect money from the Wayfarer parties. Sure that might lead to posts for click from pro-Baldoni types about her legal costs, but I suspect these would be overshadowed by reports on how Lively won the motion.

Not saying she's going to win, just that NAG's "analysis" here makes zero sense. Sometimes she has interesting takes; this is not one of them. This is stupid and sort of an embarrassing argument for a lawyer to make in public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAG is saying if the court were to rule that wayfarer had to pay those fees (which sounds unlikely and why others pointed out would be very limited in scope), it would require lively’s team to release details on what they charged and how they got there (how many people were working on this issue, what they were charging etc.) and that widely likely would not want that information release because then people could extrapolate and it would lead to a whole bunch of headlines about what she actually paid these lawyers.

I don't get this because this is always true for lawsuits. Had Lively gone to trial and won, she would have had to submit her attorneys fees to the court for damages. This is a standard thing.

The attorneys fees for just Baldoni's lawsuit against her will be just a fraction of what she paid total, so it's unlikely to be an embarrassing number. Especially since her team replied heavily on work by amicus briefs for the 47.1 motion, and Lively didn't pay for those amicus briefs. So if anything this stands to change the narrative that she spent 30 million on legal fees -- the number she would be claiming for the 47.1 motion would be only a small fraction of whatever her total number is.

No one said that they would be reporting the whole number, but you can extrapolate. People can figure out roughly how many lawyers were working on different issues and what they’re charging. You are mistaken if you don’t think this would generate a bunch of headlines about exorbitant legal fees that each side paid - people will do anything for clicks.

Anonymous wrote:NAG is saying if the court were to rule that wayfarer had to pay those fees (which sounds unlikely and why others pointed out would be very limited in scope), it would require lively’s team to release details on what they charged and how they got there (how many people were working on this issue, what they were charging etc.) and that widely likely would not want that information release because then people could extrapolate and it would lead to a whole bunch of headlines about what she actually paid these lawyers.

I don't get this because this is always true for lawsuits. Had Lively gone to trial and won, she would have had to submit her attorneys fees to the court for damages. This is a standard thing.

The attorneys fees for just Baldoni's lawsuit against her will be just a fraction of what she paid total, so it's unlikely to be an embarrassing number. Especially since her team replied heavily on work by amicus briefs for the 47.1 motion, and Lively didn't pay for those amicus briefs. So if anything this stands to change the narrative that she spent 30 million on legal fees -- the number she would be claiming for the 47.1 motion would be only a small fraction of whatever her total number is.

Anonymous wrote:Liman ruled today that he needs no further briefing on 47.1 attorney’s fees motion. This is in response to Lively’s request for more briefing late last week.

He said no further briefing "at this time" which might mean he could ask for additional briefing on discrete issues later.

I think if he actually rules on this motion on the merits, he will probably request further briefing and a hearing, because whatever he decides has potential to be controversial and he will want there to be as much in the public record to rely on as possible.

My guess is that he's barely considered this motion yet and therefore wants time to familiarize himself before requesting any additional argument from the parties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman ruled today that he needs no further briefing on 47.1 attorney’s fees motion. This is in response to Lively’s request for more briefing late last week.

So when should we expect him to rule on 47.1?

Relatively soon.

Anonymous wrote:Liman ruled today that he needs no further briefing on 47.1 attorney’s fees motion. This is in response to Lively’s request for more briefing late last week.

So when should we expect him to rule on 47.1?

Liman ruled today that he needs no further briefing on 47.1 attorney’s fees motion. This is in response to Lively’s request for more briefing late last week.

NAG is saying if the court were to rule that wayfarer had to pay those fees (which sounds unlikely and why others pointed out would be very limited in scope), it would require lively’s team to release details on what they charged and how they got there (how many people were working on this issue, what they were charging etc.) and that widely likely would not want that information release because then people could extrapolate and it would lead to a whole bunch of headlines about what she actually paid these lawyers.