Not a troll and not expecting anyone to explain this to me, but just putting it out there that I have no idea why this stuff looks bad for Freedman.

From what I understand from what a poster just posted a few comments ago JB did say that Sloane told him justin sexually assaulted Blake, then he came back and said I didn’t mean sexual assault I meant sexual harassment. Then he came back and said never mind. She never said anything. I read that in the complaint.

I’m sorry, but this guy sounds unhinged and it also definitely sounds like Sloane told him crappy stuff about Justin including allegations of SH at best, at worst SA but something spooked him and now he he is backtracking. How this bad for Freedman?

Again, not really expecting an answer but just saying that’s when I’m reading from somebody not going straight to the documents but just reading this thread.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

I thought I had actually written this comment until I got to your second paragraph. So anyway, I totally agree with you. I think it was extremely sketchy for Freedman to include this 8/20 Vituscka text in Baldoni's complaint when he knew as of 8/25 that Vituscka said Sloane never told him Baldoni sexually assaulted Lively. Yet Freedman put that language in, knowing what he knew, without asking any other questions. I think Freedman is going to have some problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you suppose they only gave it in excerpted form with no date. Clearly it doesn’t directly flow from the text on the left as you can see someone other than JV responded to his last statement.

And that's why I have acknowledged several times, and I think I brought it up first, that it needs to be dated and authenticated, and Wayfarer should turn it over in their discovery. It's just I predict it will be dated before the suit knowing how Freedman is.

My point is that’s no accidental. Moreover quite sure BL and SJ already have this text. We’ll see, WF still has a response to the motion to compel. They also can move to strike the JV declaration.

Anonymous wrote:Why do you suppose they only gave it in excerpted form with no date. Clearly it doesn’t directly flow from the text on the left as you can see someone other than JV responded to his last statement.

And that's why I have acknowledged several times, and I think I brought it up first, that it needs to be dated and authenticated, and Wayfarer should turn it over in their discovery. It's just I predict it will be dated before the suit knowing how Freedman is.

Why do you suppose they only gave it in excerpted form with no date. Clearly it doesn’t directly flow from the text on the left as you can see someone other than JV responded to his last statement.

Anonymous wrote:I am super out of the loop of the JV thing. So the pro-Livelier is claiming that Leslie Sloane never said that Justin Baldoni sexually assaulted that and that Bryan Freedman knew that she never said that, correct?

And they're using this text as evidence? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

"I had many conversations with about Blake and never once did she say anything about sexual assault."

I will eat my hat if that's not the text you're referring to, but you have to be joking, right? This text does not prove that Bryan believed Leslie said nothing about SA, and then proceeded to lie about it. All he's saying is that Leslie never said anything about sexual assault to him. Right, but he can also believe that and also believe that Leslie was going around to DM reporters and saying Justin did SA Blake. I am super confused where the huge smoking gun against Bryan is.

Here is Wayfarer's motion in opposition to Sloane's request to attorney's fees. Don't you think that text, if authenticated, undercuts this argument in bold?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.392.0.pdf
loane points to a declaration submitted by the Daily Mail reporter disavowing that Sloane
had made such a statement, Mot. at 29 (citing Dkt. 286-1). The reporter, James Vituscka, had
previously stated exactly the opposite. In the messages, Vituscka was explaining how, during the
Summer of 2024, Sloane had been telling him that there were issues on set because “everybody
hates Justin” but had not asserted, or even insinuated, that Baldoni had engaged in sexual
misconduct towards Lively. Am. Compl. ¶ 193. Indeed, Sloane had specifically told him that it
[the tensions on set] “ha[d] nothing to do with Blake[.]” Id.
By contrast, after the publication of the Times article, Vituscka noted that “[Sloane is now]
saying that Blake was sexually assaulted.” Id. Vituscka noted the sharp discrepancy in Sloane’s
story and wondered aloud why she would not have said anything back then. Id. , Vituscka’s recent
disavowal of his prior statements is not credible. Vituscka now claims that he “meant to say,
‘sexually harassed’” and was referring to the allegations in Lively’s CRD Complaint and “not in
reference to any conversation I had with Leslie Sloane.” Dkt. 286-1, ¶¶ 3, 4. Whatever meant to
say, his statements were not ambiguous, his explanation does not make sense and at the time their
Complaint was filed, the Wayfarer Parties had every right to rely on the statement – they were not
required to have a crystal ball to predict that Vituscka would change his story. Therefore, the
inclusion of Vituscka’s statement in the Amended Complaint was neither knowingly false nor a
function of any failure of diligence on the part of the Wayfarer Parties. The reason for the claim’s
failure was, instead, a failure to adequately plead the requisite state of fault. Id. at pp. 91, 93-94.

I am super out of the loop of the JV thing. So the pro-Livelier is claiming that Leslie Sloane never said that Justin Baldoni sexually assaulted that and that Bryan Freedman knew that she never said that, correct?

And they're using this text as evidence? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

"I had many conversations with about Blake and never once did she say anything about sexual assault."

I will eat my hat if that's not the text you're referring to, but you have to be joking, right? This text does not prove that Bryan believed Leslie said nothing about SA, and then proceeded to lie about it. All he's saying is that Leslie never said anything about sexual assault to him. Right, but he can also believe that and also believe that Leslie was going around to DM reporters and saying Justin did SA Blake. I am super confused where the huge smoking gun against Bryan is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfarer to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.

The judge has already said he was going to disregard Ezra’s letter requesting this.

Yes, he's ignoring her supplemental letter but that letter was supplementing her original omnibus motion to compel (with the gazillion attachments) which is broad enough to include this because she asked for materials through the present. Liman asked Wayfarer, and only Wayfarer, to respond on that point which they did. Then Lively ran in like the teacher's pet with just one more letter (probably coordinated with JV's statement) to make the point again. Liman is disregarding that but will probably still grant her original motion to give Lively materials related to the "ongoing smear campaign" through the present.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfarer to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.

The judge has already said he was going to disregard Ezra’s letter requesting this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfar
er to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.

It’s cute how hard you want to believe this despite all evidence that JV is a liar who has no ethics.

Who is "Jv"

James Vituscka

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfar
er to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.

It’s cute how hard you want to believe this despite all evidence that JV is a liar who has no ethics.

Who is "Jv"

Leslie Sloane is an absolute POS. I don’t believe for a minute she didn’t try to spread multiple rumors that JB was a SH or SA or worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfarer to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.

Unless it didn’t exist at the time of the production. JV clearly started communicating with the WF team this summer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfar
er to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.

It’s cute how hard you want to believe this despite all evidence that JV is a liar who has no ethics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.

That's why they need to get it directly from Wayfarer. It should have been produced at least by defendant Melissa Nathan who is on the chain. My prediction is it will confirm the text was prior to filing the suit. I remember when Sloane was filing motions to get Wayfarer to at least identify the defamatory statements and they were very cagey about it and finally identified JV.