I see that you said that every statement that the moving party makes in their Rule 56.1 has to be cited. I noticed a lot of times in Lively’s response where she says something like “undisputed except for xyz which the cited evidence does not support”. For example #5 in which Baldoni references Jane the Virgin receiving awards. So basically, Baldoni didn’t actually include evidence of that in the exhibits which is why Lively is disputing it here, right?
In #5, Lively is saying the fact itself might be undisputed (Baldoni worked on Jane the Virgin), but Baldoni's characterization of it as "acclaimed" and "Golden Globe-nominated" isn't supported by the specific evidence he cited.
Look at what her lawyers say: "the cited evidence does not support" those characterizations. She's not saying Jane the Virgin wasn't acclaimed or nominated, she's saying the exhibit Baldoni cited (Wayfarer Ex. 7) doesn't actually prove those specific claims.
Under Rule 56.1, you can't just assert favorable characterizations. If you claim something is "acclaimed," you need to cite evidence proving it was acclaimed (like reviews, awards lists, etc.). If the exhibit you cite doesn't actually say that, your opponent can dispute the characterization like she did here!
This was great! I’m so appreciative of your coverage of this case here and on threads. One question: how does the court interface with evidence that implies wrongdoing but isn’t explicit (E.g. text messages about destroying Blake/saying it would be untraceable/ noting that you shouldn’t write what you’ll do because it could have poor implications)? Does that fall under “multiple interpretations,” or does it not count as a factual dispute because it isn’t concrete? Also, does evidence that implies that someone has purposefully not created a written record carry any negative inference weight (like spoliation) or is it considered neutral?
You are too kind! I wrote a lot of this over the holidays for threads, then adapted for threads, and then realized I should post it here as well. Allows me to be more detailed!
It’s a good distraction from the world. :) I appreciate your kind words.
I see that you said that every statement that the moving party makes in their Rule 56.1 has to be cited. I noticed a lot of times in Lively’s response where she says something like “undisputed except for xyz which the cited evidence does not support”. For example #5 in which Baldoni references Jane the Virgin receiving awards. So basically, Baldoni didn’t actually include evidence of that in the exhibits which is why Lively is disputing it here, right?
Great question!
In #5, Lively is saying the fact itself might be undisputed (Baldoni worked on Jane the Virgin), but Baldoni's characterization of it as "acclaimed" and "Golden Globe-nominated" isn't supported by the specific evidence he cited.
Look at what her lawyers say: "the cited evidence does not support" those characterizations. She's not saying Jane the Virgin wasn't acclaimed or nominated, she's saying the exhibit Baldoni cited (Wayfarer Ex. 7) doesn't actually prove those specific claims.
She is right: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.963.7.pdf
Under Rule 56.1, you can't just assert favorable characterizations. If you claim something is "acclaimed," you need to cite evidence proving it was acclaimed (like reviews, awards lists, etc.). If the exhibit you cite doesn't actually say that, your opponent can dispute the characterization like she did here!
Although I was definitely missing that nuance of fact versus characterization.
You weren’t! It’s really good to point out. Thank you.
Thanks to you both for this discussion!
Thanks, that’s what I thought it was saying but I wasn’t sure.
I love this!! So happy to read all your posts! Got substack just for you!
This was great! I’m so appreciative of your coverage of this case here and on threads. One question: how does the court interface with evidence that implies wrongdoing but isn’t explicit (E.g. text messages about destroying Blake/saying it would be untraceable/ noting that you shouldn’t write what you’ll do because it could have poor implications)? Does that fall under “multiple interpretations,” or does it not count as a factual dispute because it isn’t concrete? Also, does evidence that implies that someone has purposefully not created a written record carry any negative inference weight (like spoliation) or is it considered neutral?
Great questions! I hope MJ is able to find time to answer them, because I think a lot of us find these issues fundamental
Ready for the next parts! This is fascinating, MJ.
Thank you, friend!
Excellent presentation and explanation of legal concepts!!
Thanks MJ! I love your breakdowns and look forward to parts 2, 3 and 4.
Thanks MJ! This is brilliant! Looking forward to Part, 2, 3 and 4!
Thank you for reading!
Extraordinary work, thank you!
Thanks for reading!
First, how do you find the time?! This is so informative.
Second, it just occurred to me that this all used to happen by hand and my hand hurts thinking about that.
You are too kind! I wrote a lot of this over the holidays for threads, then adapted for threads, and then realized I should post it here as well. Allows me to be more detailed!
It’s a good distraction from the world. :) I appreciate your kind words.