Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

She did make the request to destroy the dailies directly. The text about the destruction didn't mention her team.

Further, at her depostion, she denied that she or anyone acting on her behalf [b]made such a request.

The text also indicates that all dailies were destroyed, and that there was no nudity.

Lastly, You have no personal knowledge of what Giannettti knew or didn't know, so let's just discount your descvription of her as "someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, " she 's an uniinterested third party who establishs (1) dailies were destroyed at Blake's request despite lack of nudity, and (2) Blake lied at her deposition. Clearly a Blake bot like you would try to discredit her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

I don't understand why seeking fees on the basis of a granted MTD is overreach. If it's dismissed on the merits it's no different from a jury verdict. Actually better, because it means the lawsuit didn't have any legal merit at all, which makes it more likely a judge will grant fees for wasting everyone's time.

Courts award attorneys fees on the basis of a granted MTD all the time.

DP her suit against him was dismissed in nyc for the exact same reason and he’s not able to collect fees under 47.1. The law is clearly problematic. She’s suing someone she’s never met for fees under a harassment anti slapp law. Make it make sense.

It's easy to understand if you get that 47.1 was created because of the existing problem of people who have been accused, in good faith, of abuse or harassment, using the tactic of simply filing a baseless defamation lawsuit against their accuser in order silence them.

Lively's case was not dismissed for the "exact same reason" as Baldonis. In fact, her case was not dismissed -- some of her claims survived and the court went out of it's way to note that a jury could find that Lively had reasonably believed herself to have been sexually harassed. Meaning her claims were made in good faith, even if most were dismissed for other reasons.

Baldoni's lawsuit, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Baldoni/Wayfarer, failed to state a single claim for relief that could be supported by the law. Not even one. Against any defendants.

One of these was a good faith lawsuit based on a reasonable belief, the other was a meritless lawsuit filed as PR. 47.1 is only interested in punishing one of those.

Dp, but you are a moron. The Court did not go out of its way to note that -- to the contrary, it found a number of her sexual harassment claims failed as a matter of law, even construing them in the light most favorable to her as required in a motion for summary judgment. The remainder could not be dismissed due to issues of fact, and the requirement that her facts be taken as true in evaluating a motion for summary judgment.

Exiting now, it's a beautiful day and I have no interest in arguing online with someone who either is too stupid to understand the case, or too biased to post without misconstruing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

I don't understand why seeking fees on the basis of a granted MTD is overreach. If it's dismissed on the merits it's no different from a jury verdict. Actually better, because it means the lawsuit didn't have any legal merit at all, which makes it more likely a judge will grant fees for wasting everyone's time.

Courts award attorneys fees on the basis of a granted MTD all the time.

I guess we differ on whether a plaintiff whose substantive claims are never addressed should be deemed to have not prevailed and liable for attorney's fees. When a Court dismisses on the basis of personal jurisdiction, they aren't addressing the substance of the defamation claims. Of course, you know this, but are unable to ever admit anything Blake does is wrong, or similarly, that you are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

I don't understand why seeking fees on the basis of a granted MTD is overreach. If it's dismissed on the merits it's no different from a jury verdict. Actually better, because it means the lawsuit didn't have any legal merit at all, which makes it more likely a judge will grant fees for wasting everyone's time.

Courts award attorneys fees on the basis of a granted MTD all the time.

DP her suit against him was dismissed in nyc for the exact same reason and he’s not able to collect fees under 47.1. The law is clearly problematic. She’s suing someone she’s never met for fees under a harassment anti slapp law. Make it make sense.

It's easy to understand if you get that 47.1 was created because of the existing problem of people who have been accused, in good faith, of abuse or harassment, using the tactic of simply filing a baseless defamation lawsuit against their accuser in order silence them.

Lively's case was not dismissed for the "exact same reason" as Baldonis. In fact, her case was not dismissed -- some of her claims survived and the court went out of it's way to note that a jury could find that Lively had reasonably believed herself to have been sexually harassed. Meaning her claims were made in good faith, even if most were dismissed for other reasons.

Baldoni's lawsuit, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Baldoni/Wayfarer, failed to state a single claim for relief that could be supported by the law. Not even one. Against any defendants.

One of these was a good faith lawsuit based on a reasonable belief, the other was a meritless lawsuit filed as PR. 47.1 is only interested in punishing one of those.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

I don't understand why seeking fees on the basis of a granted MTD is overreach. If it's dismissed on the merits it's no different from a jury verdict. Actually better, because it means the lawsuit didn't have any legal merit at all, which makes it more likely a judge will grant fees for wasting everyone's time.

Courts award attorneys fees on the basis of a granted MTD all the time.

DP her suit against him was dismissed in nyc for the exact same reason and he’s not able to collect fees under 47.1. The law is clearly problematic. She’s suing someone she’s never met for fees under a harassment anti slapp law. Make it make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

I don't understand why seeking fees on the basis of a granted MTD is overreach. If it's dismissed on the merits it's no different from a jury verdict. Actually better, because it means the lawsuit didn't have any legal merit at all, which makes it more likely a judge will grant fees for wasting everyone's time.

Courts award attorneys fees on the basis of a granted MTD all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

I don't understand why seeking fees on the basis of a granted MTD is overreach. If it's dismissed on the merits it's no different from a jury verdict. Actually better, because it means the lawsuit didn't have any legal merit at all, which makes it more likely a judge will grant fees for wasting everyone's time.

Courts award attorneys fees on the basis of a granted MTD all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Grow up? How about learn to read? I said that Blake seeking attorneys fees under Rule 47.1 on the basis of a MTD decided on purely procedural grounds was overreaching. You can't even bring yourself to really defend it because it is quite simply ridiculous. And
if Rule 47.1 can be interpreted at supporting such abuse, it is an overbroad restriction on free speech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

I can't take you seriously when you write like this. I just can't. You are making it sound like Lively wrote 47.1. She's just seeking relief under it. You think she should refrain from seeking relief under an existing law because... why? Baldoni rules and she drools? Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading is fundamental:



Assuming (without deciding) that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1(b) may be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under Section 47.1(a), including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorneys’ fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages, and whether the burden differs where Section 47.1(b) relief is sought through Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

He could not be more explicit that there might be a different burden of proof when Rule 54 is invoked.

Further, the last time he used the "assuming without deciding" language was with respect to the enforcibility of the ALA, and he later made that the focus of oral argument.

Yes, there might be and there might not. That's why he's asking for arguments. Who is disputing this.

You can't read into that language the way you are here. This is just how judges request briefing on a specific issue and prevent parties from sneaking in other arguments. Also, as pointed out upthread, when he used the same language on the MSJ, it was because he actually did NOT dismiss all Lively's claims -- he retained three claims and in doing so had to evaluate the the merits of the underlying SH claims since they had direct bearing on the remaining three claims. It wasn't a trick to make you think he wasn't going to apply ALA, he actually needed to address the issues he was asking to have briefed. I would assume the same thing here. It does not mean he is going to decide 47.1 doesn't apply under FRCP 54. You're reading a pattern where one doesn't exist, and based on a misunderstanding of how he decided the prior motion.

No party was arguing that a different burden of proof existed when 47.1 was applied in federal cases until Liman himself raised the possibility. You can argue that has no significance but please, that’s a silly argument.

You also haven’t addressed Lively”s attempt to use 47.1 for a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Liman is no doubt aware of it, and it shows how overbroad 47.1 is.

It's important that Liman is focused on who has the burden of proof, yes. No one is arguing otherwise. It's just not obviously beneficial to either side?

Liman's job is not to consider if 47.1 is "over broad" nor to weigh in on the 47.1 motion in Texas. Neither of these things will have any bearing on Liman's decision. I don't actually have an obligation to "address" Lively's 47.1 motion in Texas, btw. I'm just a commenter on a message board. I honestly don't know much about the Texas proceedings at all so can't weigh in.

I already said that Liman would be ruling on the case in front of him. But Likely's TX motion makes obvious the manner in which R. 47.1 can easily be abused due to defects in drafting. She can't stop herself from overreaching.

Anonymous wrote:I could be completely wrong about the Berk case being on Liman's mind, freely admit I am not a Liman mind reader. But worth noting that not only was it recently cited by Babcock in opposition to the Texas Rule 47.1 motion for fees, it also issued in early 2026, after the briefing was completed on the 47.1 motion in the NY Case.