Can the fat lady please sing!

追加: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]We are going back to court. They say it's not over till the fat lady sings.

[00:00:04]And we cannot find any fat ladies around here to sing. So, back to court we go.

[00:00:08]Grab a snack. Meet me on the other side.

[00:00:09]Let me catch you up.

[00:00:15]>> Well, hello there, beautiful people, and welcome back to Lock in Elsie. Lock in. Hello there, beautiful people, and welcome back to another episode of Everyone and Find Out. I know, I know you guys would think there's a settlement and it's over. No, I'm giddy because I'm going to New York, baby.

[00:00:34]Calm down. It's not about you. Okay, you guys, we're headed back to New York.

[00:00:40]I just got off the phone with Carol. She just booked her flight. I'm going to make this video real quick and I'm going to book mine. But I already found the flight. I told you guys, right? I told you guys I was meant to go to New York.

[00:00:51]I was meant to see the inside of that courtroom. I just knew my destiny.

[00:01:01]Let me take this seriously. Judge Lyman has just dropped an order on us.

[00:01:05]Literally 30 minutes ago before I sat down to record this. I was making dinner for my kid and my phone is going off and I'm texting Carol and I'm texting Botchi and we're going back and forth. Guys, we're going to New York. It's only an hour hearing, which is still fine because it's not at the crack of dawn.

[00:01:19]We don't have to wake up and go line up at the court. It's at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, which is great. You can land.

[00:01:24]You can lay you can you can sleep in.

[00:01:26]You can enjoy a hotel room a little bit.

[00:01:27]But we're going to read the order. It's one page and then I'm going to break it down for you guys. I funny enough I had made a video on the New York Times article that I was going to post for you guys, but now you get this one first. So it might be a little bit out of order.

[00:01:39]And in that video specifically, I talked about the fact that there is no lawyering left, right? Everything Judge Lyman is the main character. Now, I guess I lied. So don't don't call me out in that video. And I I'm not going to edit that out. I'm going to leave it in there. But, uh, Judge Lyman tonight, um, I don't know if you guys can tell, but I'm so happy.

[00:02:00]I'm so happy I get to go to New York and see the inside of the courtroom and see Judge Lyman in his face and be like, "Bro, bro." And I I wonder if Blake will make it. I don't think I don't think she comes. I don't think she comes. But, but let's stick Let's stick to business.

[00:02:14]Elsie, lock in. Lock in. Okay, let me let me let me situate myself.

[00:02:20]Ah, defendant Blake Lively moves for fees, cost, and damages under California's Civil Code uh section 47.1.

[00:02:27]The court will receive argument and letter briefs on the following questions assuming without deciding, it's a great point. We're going to come back to that, that an application by the prevailing defendant for relief under California Civil Code of 47.1 may be made pursuant to federal rule uh 54.

[00:02:44]Which party bears a burden of proof of showing that a communication is privileged under 47.1, including whether the burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorney's fees alone or also for tribal damages and punitive damages and whether the burden differs where section 47.1 belief is sought through rule 54.

[00:03:06]Now, that's a lot there. I'm going to break it down for you as best as I can.

[00:03:09]I'm just going to finish reading this cuz it's only one page. So, stick with me. I'm I'm going so fast, guys. I'm so excited. I just want to go book my ticket.

[00:03:18]Let me lock in. Let me lock in. Oh, and I already text Lauren. Lauren will be there, too. Is it going to be a party?

[00:03:25]Wow, Elsie, you're acting so ghost right now. Okay. Okay. Okay. The parties may also address how the burden may be discharged by May 31st, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. Each side, he's so specific here, is actually insane. We've never seen him be this specific, I don't think, in the past. Each side may submit a single space letter of no more than two pages, 12 point font. I'm surprised he didn't tell them if he wants Times New Roman or Ariel or whatever. And no footnotes limited to listing the cases that the party would like the court to review with quoting or explanatory partheticals.

[00:04:03]Don't give him no long footnotes. He's not here for it. The court will hear argument on June 1st, 2026 at 2 p.m. in courtroom 15C of the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse. Arguments will last one hour with each side allocated 1 half hour. So ordered. Basically, Judge Lyman just told me to order myself a nice uh flight, a nice plane ticket and a nice room and meet him in New York cuz we got to chop it up. So pretty much what does this mean is, and I've told you guys from the beginning, I've said this a 100 times, Judge Lyman wants nothing to do with 47.1, right? He doesn't want the burden of it. He doesn't want it anywhere near his legacy being, you know, he granted it. And right here, it's important that I think he's asking the question, can Blake even bring this?

[00:04:49]Like, can he can can Blake even use this law? And we all know that she's using this California law, but she's suing in New York, but the movie, the filming, everything she's claiming happened happened in New Jersey. We all know Blake is trying to get money with this 47.1 thing. She doesn't actually care about what the law is meant to do or whatever. She just wants money. She doesn't care about anybody getting punished because nothing really happened to her. She just cares that she started this lawsuit as a way to silence people and, you know, get get in front of get in front of people and use the sympathy card and everything and it didn't work.

[00:05:24]But now but now it's done for. So, she has to get money from somewhere and we know they need to pay the construction crew as well. So, she has to get her money from somewhere. But what Judge Lyman is doing with this order, and I'm I'm I'm excited to be there to hear is who has the burden of proof because Blake is asking for attorney's fees, cost, punitive damages, triple damages.

[00:05:44]Now, again, we know whoever has burden of proof is always sitting at a disadvantage because you have to work twice as hard, you know, to even get a little bit of, you know, a portion of whatever you're looking for because it's up to you to prove whether or not what you're saying happened happened or if you had the right to even, you know, be in here. The interesting part, like I brought up earlier, is Judge Lyman is also kind of questioning whether or not Blake can even use this legal thing procedure to get any kind of money. And I told you guys, whatever this decision ends up being is going to be historic.

[00:06:16]And I think Blake kind of is interested in that as well. She kind of wants to be the first person this that that, you know what I mean? But I, like I've said 100 times, I don't think Judge Lyman wants anything to do with this. I don't think he wants the stench of this anywhere near him. There is no case law on this. this would be the first one and I think he's also allowing them to build you know build this up and take steps to this because whatever decision he makes whatever comes out of this at the end of the day is going to be the case law moving forward people are going to start citing Lively versus Wayfair Lively versus Baldon or whatever you want to call it moving forward if they want to use this law. So, I think he really wants to like tread lightly and treat this with as much care as possible. And this is so funny because the video I made about the New York Times article that I was going to post was kind of like, oh, the lawyering is done. Judge Lyman is the main character now. Like, nobody apparently it's not done. The lawyers have one more chance to do their big one and lawyer again. So, that's going to be interesting. I'm sure Kevin Fritz is going to do his big one when it comes to the writing. I'm so excited. like and now I don't even know what happens after the hearing like how soon we get a decision after that. Either way, we're going to find out. Uh Monday is going to be an interesting day. Uh and the hearing is going to be at 2 p.m. Um and my flight is not going to leave the flight that I'm looking at till later.

[00:07:37]So hopefully I can make a video right there with, you know, Carol and whoever is going to be around there and bring it to Oh, Carol just Carol just came. Let me see if she can pop up.

[00:07:50]Carol.

[00:07:50]>> Hi.

[00:07:52]>> Oh my god.

[00:07:53]>> I have to get I have to be off camera because I >> That's fine. I need to get up soon anyway. I'm starving and I need to go finish booking my flight. But what?

[00:08:01]>> Oh my. Are we gonna get our New York dream?

[00:08:05]>> I told you. I told you. Like I just like I could not believe that I would actually go this entire case without seeing New York. That would just not make any sense.

[00:08:15]>> I knew I just believe. I had to believe.

[00:08:19]And the fact that we're getting a hearing is insane. I didn't think there was any lawyering left to be done.

[00:08:24]>> Yeah. Yeah. I I think um I think this kind of like recharges the conversation around the the hearing, the trial, the case. Lively and Reynolds.

[00:08:35]>> Yeah, I'm excited. Benz, y I always get excited when I get a chance to spend time with both of you cuz I'm like I miss y'alls. I do.

[00:08:48]>> Life is so different.

[00:08:50]>> We all love it. Are you kidding me?

[00:08:52]Getting a hearing. But Bachi, just before you came on, Carol and I were talking about the she was like, why is he doing this? And I think he doesn't want this decision at all. He doesn't want to make it. And if he's gonna make it, he's trying to take the decision out of his hand as much as possible and say the lawyers argue this or because of this argument because this will be the first case law for this 47.1. This will be president setting. So moving forward, anytime somebody wants to use 47.1, they're going to cite Baldoni versus Lively >> and whatever decision he makes, Judge Lyman is going to be setting a precedent. And I don't think he wants anything to do with it. That's just my two cents.

[00:09:32]>> You know, I I I I realized though after hearing folks talk, this is about just a motion to dismiss, right?

[00:09:41]>> No, this is definitely on the damages, punitive damages, attorneys. This is definitely on damages. I don't understand. Can you explain that to me?

[00:09:49]>> Well, when people talk about like, well, this is about how much she spent on the motion to dismiss. Oh, you're talking about how much he spends, not the decision.

[00:10:02]>> I mean I mean but I mean is it is is is what is going to help? So is it the motion to dismiss not the issue for him?

[00:10:09]It's more so the damages portion >> is definitely >> kind of >> for sure right here. Let me pull this up right here. Oh, I lost you guys. Oh, how do I Wait, how do I do this? Oh, there you guys are. Okay, so literally right here, the court will receive arguments and letter briefs assuming without deciding maybe and then he's also even arguing if Blake can even use this rule in the first place. Right? That's also a big thing. Uh which party right here which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under 47.1 including whether the burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorney's fees alone or also for tribal or punitive damages and whether the burden differs uh where section 47.1 relief is sought through.

[00:10:56]>> So this is about money. This is not about the decision on whether the case should have been dismissed on. Like it's purely about deciding if she should be granted 47.1 if she can even use it if and how much money she get she should get. And I was talking to LGA like a couple weeks ago and she was like even deciding she gets it the amount of money he allows her to get is also going to be president setting cuz again every every decision he's making in here I feel like even him allowing this hearing is president setting. You know what I'm saying? in the future if people are going to use 47.1 and the judge is like, "I don't want to hear from you." They're going to be like, "Well, in Lively versus Maldoni before the judge made a decision, he allowed them to write a one-page um a two-page singles pace, you know, letter explaining themselves one last time." And there was a one-hour hearing, half an hour each. I feel like everything that's happening from the the moment he told my godly, but I don't want to hear from you till anything moving forward is now becoming history.

[00:11:53]We are watching it play, you know, come in play and everybody is going to use it moving forward if they choose to use this 47.1. But I'm I'm trying to understand your point of view there about you with the decision on when you're saying people were saying is about the dismissal.

[00:12:08]Well, I mean, I was just trying to wrap my head around like what the New York Times was talking about, what they were trying to argue and yada yada yada about like this is the last chance that >> I mean it is it is this is the because there is no appeals. Also, this is if Judge Lyman comes back and rules either way, this is the last time Blake can talk to us ever again and ask for a dollar. Whether he allows Justin Belon's side to walk away scot-free or says you need to pay her $100 million, nobody can do anything about it. You just have to quite literally say thank you so much for your service and walk away. So, but I felt like and I mean I did a video on the New York Times article I was supposed to post this morning, but I fell asleep. Um, and I think before we got this hearing, this this uh hearing notice, Judge Lyman was kind of like the main character now. everything was going to be on him, which again I feel like he doesn't want, which is why he's allowing this hearing. Like one last time, somebody convinced me why I should rule either way. You know what I'm saying? I think that's what this is. He definitely doesn't want this.

[00:13:09]>> And I've said as much from the beginning, and I'm going to keep saying it.

[00:13:12]>> I think that even if he doesn't want it, like he has to rule on it, right? Like he has to this is in his ball. And I I don't think this is the first time someone in his position would have to um uh say something on a case of first impression. like this is his job. Like even though he may not want to, I think he has to.

[00:13:31]>> Um but I do like how he kind of words this like you guys have to prove like whose burden it is.

[00:13:39]>> Um because like you said, maybe he's looking for a way out based on their arguments.

[00:13:44]>> Yeah.

[00:13:45]>> You know, and then I like the last part where it says the parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

[00:13:51]>> Yeah.

[00:13:53]>> This is insane.

[00:13:56]What about the the in the article for the New York Times it talks about there has been decisions made somewhere around 47.1 it's not like completely the same but there has been like he so he's not the first one but maybe the first one federally or what what was you know that whole like janitor statement that they made about the janitor >> let me pull it up >> I guess I'm trying to still wrap my brain around this. I'm like, I'm so not a lawyer and I I am so confused to some degree about what why this is a precedent like what how it will shake things up cuz I kept hearing oh this is a just a fee what what what did they keep saying it was a fee >> fee shifting fee shifting. So if it's just fee shifting and there's other ones that have that. So it's got to be the just the travel damages. That's got to be what's different about it, right?

[00:14:59]>> Yeah. He does want a distinction as to what applies towards like just the attorney's fees and um and then also for trouble and punitive. So how do you distinguish? A hospital custodian was sued for defamation after reporting that a colleague had made sexual harassing comments towards her. The defamation issue was dismissed and a judge found last year that she was entitled to legal fees and damages under the California law. The custodian reached a settlement on the amount owed to her and did not pursue the possibility of a larger financial payout. Federal judges regularly apply state law, but they typically have precedent from state courts to help guide them. In this case, there are not many cases out of California for judge Lyman to reference >> in. So in in one of them >> there is this there is this but this is so completely different >> because they chose not to pursue the trouble damages.

[00:15:54]>> They did. Exactly. This is so completely different from this.

[00:15:57]>> So that is an option to not get any tribal damages or not even pursue it if they don't want.

[00:16:03]>> Yeah. Which is why I think Judge Lyman also in his in his uh thing is also even trying to argue can Blake even use this law.

[00:16:10]>> Yeah.

[00:16:11]>> Can she even use this? Which is a big deal.

[00:16:14]>> Yeah. Because he starts it off with assuming. Right. Assuming.

[00:16:17]>> Right. Assuming without deciding, go cook. I'm quite literally starving. I haven't even had a sip of water all day and it's almost 10 p.m. Eastern. I'm going to go eat, but this has been so chaotic. I apologize to you guys. Got to run. I'll post this for you guys soon.

[00:16:35]I'll see you on the next one. Please remember to like, share, subscribe, and come back for my New York Times article one. It's going to be again a little awkward because it's in a wrong order now, but I'll see you on the next one.

[00:16:44]I'll see you in New York. Have a great day. Bye-bye.

[00:16:58]around and find out and find out. Around and find out and find out.