Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

+1 if there are even two of them. Notice the usage of "Baldoner," which until this point, has typically come from the more low-effort pro-Lively poster. Or persona, I should say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

And those two probably don't get why people post the same pro-Baldoni or anti-Lively posts every day. But that is where we are.

Because they don’t, this thread is entirely driven by two of the pro Lively posters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

And those two probably don't get why people post the same pro-Baldoni or anti-Lively posts every day. But that is where we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I don’t think there’s enough evidence for the jury to find for lively on SH, and I believe that if they find against her on SH but in her favor on retaliation it will play very poorly in the court of public opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I don’t think there’s enough evidence for the jury to find for lively on SH, and I believe that if they find against her on SH but in her favor on retaliation it will play very poorly in the court of public opinion.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im kinda over the debates about group pleadings and MTDs. At this point, it’s all in Liman’s hands. I think realistically lawyers on both sides filed a bunch of claims that don’t pass the smell test.

On Lively’s side:

The SH claim is problematic but BF didn’t move to dismiss it b/c he’d rather challenge it before a jury b/c it’ll play against her. Her team can’t dismiss it themselves b/c they need it for PR. However, make no mistake, the SH claim is not winnable. Their best shot, as they’ve even indicated, is the retaliation.

They also should not be suing or naming Sorowitz as an individual. They could sue WF the company without suing or naming Sorowitz. It was a dumb move on their part to drag him in for multiple reasons: 1. He’s the money and now has a personal reason to fund the defense. 2. He’s a private person so he doesn’t have to prove actual malice in the defamation claim, so that’s a bigger risk for BL.

Also, and here my memory is admittedly rusty, but doesn’t lively also have a bit of a group pleading problem herself? I recall Jed Wallace saying in his motion to dismiss that he’s never met Lively and therefore could not have sexually harassed her, so I think that means she must have grouped him in with the others in her SH claim.

Not including Jones is also highly suspicious and that’s why in Jen Abel’s complaint she’s seeking to indemnify Jones, saying anything I did for WF was on behalf of Jonewswork and under your oversight, so my liability gets passed to you. This is the same reason WF would be liable in Blake’s case if she wins.

Baldoni:

They probably could’ve spared Leslie Sloane (but then why should they when the other side is dragging in Jed, Abel and Sorowitz). I don’t think they care if her case is dismissed, as she’s not really who they’re after.

NYT is a long shot because of the privileges and everyone knows it.

If that’s all you think is getting dismissed from the Baldoni suit, whereas you have inexplicably listed twice as much from the Lively suit even though nobody but Wallace filed a MTD, I think you will be in for a surprise.

Reading is fundamental. I never said these are the claims that would be dismissed (as you noted BF didn’t file any MTD). I said these are the claims that don’t pass the smell testing (meaning the lawyers filed them for ulterior motives, such as just to see what sticks, to overwhelm the other side etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im kinda over the debates about group pleadings and MTDs. At this point, it’s all in Liman’s hands. I think realistically lawyers on both sides filed a bunch of claims that don’t pass the smell test.

On Lively’s side:

The SH claim is problematic but BF didn’t move to dismiss it b/c he’d rather challenge it before a jury b/c it’ll play against her. Her team can’t dismiss it themselves b/c they need it for PR. However, make no mistake, the SH claim is not winnable. Their best shot, as they’ve even indicated, is the retaliation.

They also should not be suing or naming Sorowitz as an individual. They could sue WF the company without suing or naming Sorowitz. It was a dumb move on their part to drag him in for multiple reasons: 1. He’s the money and now has a personal reason to fund the defense. 2. He’s a private person so he doesn’t have to prove actual malice in the defamation claim, so that’s a bigger risk for BL.

Also, and here my memory is admittedly rusty, but doesn’t lively also have a bit of a group pleading problem herself? I recall Jed Wallace saying in his motion to dismiss that he’s never met Lively and therefore could not have sexually harassed her, so I think that means she must have grouped him in with the others in her SH claim.

Not including Jones is also highly suspicious and that’s why in Jen Abel’s complaint she’s seeking to indemnify Jones, saying anything I did for WF was on behalf of Jonewswork and under your oversight, so my liability gets passed to you. This is the same reason WF would be liable in Blake’s case if she wins.

Baldoni:

They probably could’ve spared Leslie Sloane (but then why should they when the other side is dragging in Jed, Abel and Sorowitz). I don’t think they care if her case is dismissed, as she’s not really who they’re after.

NYT is a long shot because of the privileges and everyone knows it.

If that’s all you think is getting dismissed from the Baldoni suit, whereas you have inexplicably listed twice as much from the Lively suit even though nobody but Wallace filed a MTD, I think you will be in for a surprise.

Anonymous wrote:Im kinda over the debates about group pleadings and MTDs. At this point, it’s all in Liman’s hands. I think realistically lawyers on both sides filed a bunch of claims that don’t pass the smell test.

On Lively’s side:

The SH claim is problematic but BF didn’t move to dismiss it b/c he’d rather challenge it before a jury b/c it’ll play against her. Her team can’t dismiss it themselves b/c they need it for PR. However, make no mistake, the SH claim is not winnable. Their best shot, as they’ve even indicated, is the retaliation.

They also should not be suing or naming Sorowitz as an individual. They could sue WF the company without suing or naming Sorowitz. It was a dumb move on their part to drag him in for multiple reasons: 1. He’s the money and now has a personal reason to fund the defense. 2. He’s a private person so he doesn’t have to prove actual malice in the defamation claim, so that’s a bigger risk for BL.

Also, and here my memory is admittedly rusty, but doesn’t lively also have a bit of a group pleading problem herself? I recall Jed Wallace saying in his motion to dismiss that he’s never met Lively and therefore could not have sexually harassed her, so I think that means she must have grouped him in with the others in her SH claim.

Not including Jones is also highly suspicious and that’s why in Jen Abel’s complaint she’s seeking to indemnify Jones, saying anything I did for WF was on behalf of Jonewswork and under your oversight, so my liability gets passed to you. This is the same reason WF would be liable in Blake’s case if she wins.

Baldoni:

They probably could’ve spared Leslie Sloane (but then why should they when the other side is dragging in Jed, Abel and Sorowitz). I don’t think they care if her case is dismissed, as she’s not really who they’re after.

NYT is a long shot because of the privileges and everyone knows it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

Not sure what you are talking about, judge cannot go beyond the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss.

You’re not allowed to sue people based on vibes, and then file ROG responses like these when the people you sue ask wtf you are suing them for.

It’s incredibly common to get the premature objection to interrogatories. Talk about making a mountain of a molehill. It’s like you have never actually litigated a case.

DP here, but it *is* uncommon to use the premature objection to an interrogatory that is just "please identify the defamatory statements you are accusing the defendant of making." They are arguing that it's too early to identify even one example of alleged behavior justifying their entire action against Sloane. That is definitely unusual.

Of course, it's also unusual for a complaint to have such egregious group pleading issues that it would be necessary for a defendant to ask the plaintiff "uh, what specifically are you suing me for" in an interrogatory. So I guess that's why I've never seen it before. Usually the response to a question like this would just be to refer to the portion of the complaint that outlines the defendant's alleged behavior.

And at risk of invoking some kind of seizure in the pro-Baldoni folks, I'll point out that one way to avoid this predicament, where you are suing someone for something but you can't specify what and you have to keep asking for more discovery in the hopes that it will produce for you a specific cause of action, is to file a Doe lawsuit in which to subpoena evidence you believe may give rise to a cause of action, and then use that evidence to file a complaint wherein you may properly plead specific causes of action against specific defendants. [ducks]

I, for one, appreciated both the substance and the humor of this post!