My outline of how I think Judge Liman will decide 47.1

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]step. In my opinion, he might not he might skip this step.

[00:00:04]He might not.

[00:00:05]It didn't sound like he would.

[00:00:08]But, I think first amendment Baldoni had a right to file JB versus Biel.

[00:00:21]That's one reason 47.1 will apply.

[00:00:24]Then, this is just the constitutional reasons, okay? It might not be in the order that he goes down.

[00:00:31]But, then there's a seventh amendment issue.

[00:00:34]Juries decide damages.

[00:00:37]And he's not a jury.

[00:00:46]Jury. Damn, my handwriting sucks today, okay?

[00:00:49]Juries Juries decide damages, and he does not want to get rid of the seventh amendment. So, I think these are two constitutional reasons why 47.1 47.1 will not apply.

[00:01:05]Now, the third reason is 47.1 privilege.

[00:01:10]Who has the burden?

[00:01:15]And he sounds to me Lyman sounds like he's going to put that line that burden on Blake.

[00:01:21]Because he says she is the one looking for fees.

[00:01:27]She's the one looking for money.

[00:01:32]So, she should be the one to prove without malice.

[00:01:39]And since she didn't prove without malice because there was no trial there was no jury finding without malice there's no 47.1.

[00:01:56]So far, this is what I'm thinking.

[00:02:00]First Amendment protected Justin Baldoni's lawsuit, so he can't get punished under 47.1 for filing it.

[00:02:07]Then the second constitutional issue should be under the Seventh Amendment, Blake Lively never proved experts to show that she personally suffered damages just because Justin Baldoni called her a liar.

[00:02:23]All of her damages were about the smear campaign.

[00:02:27]So in order for her to prove damages, she would essentially ask this court to reopen this case and make findings of fact that normally are for juries.

[00:02:39]And the court is not going to do that because the court has already said today in court the Seventh Amendment protects the defendants part rights to juries.

[00:02:53]And if 47.1 is still on the charges to me, No, that's a different issue.

[00:02:57]Um So then, that's the second issue. So then this one is privileged.

[00:03:04]Blake Lively is saying her CRD complaint is privileged.

[00:03:11]That was really what it was, the CRD.

[00:03:15]Okay?

[00:03:16]But she had to show it was without malice.

[00:03:22]And since they never went to trial again, how is she supposed to prove without malice? How is Justin Baldoni supposed to prove with malice? There's no jury.

[00:03:32]So literally, like Lively's team is trying so hard, they're trying to like like Neo, dodging bullets, like you know, trying to squeeze different theories into why this should be able to work.

[00:03:49]But the reality is is that the door is closed on evidence because the judge said evidence would require ultimately a jury and I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to take the place of the jury.

[00:04:03]Blake can't go to California state court. I don't see how because they they settled.

[00:04:10]She could have before they settled.

[00:04:14]And that was what the judge was saying.

[00:04:16]If Blake Lively had gone to California state court and filed this a filed a lawsuit for fees before they settled and then just settled the federal case and said we're going to leave California state open they could have done that and that's what Lyman was saying. You guys had another way to do this.

[00:04:39]But you chose this way and before we could have the Daubert hearing and before there could be any like jury finding you guys settled.

[00:04:50]It's not my fault you settled cuz you could have gone to California state court.

[00:04:57]So for the most part like that's where we are. Like I think I think there's still plenty of argument that the first amendment and seventh amendment are going to protect Baldoni's complaint and protect Baldoni from