Latest news with #Manatt
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Blake Lively Slams & Shames Justin Baldoni's Lawyers Over Making Her Deposition Public, Leaking Details Of Last Week's Sit-Down For 'Media Campaign'
(Updated with Lively's sanctions motion against Bryan Freedman) Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni came face-to-face last week as the It Ends With Us actress gave a deposition in the fierce fight over whether sexual harassment and retaliation occurred on the film and the online fallout around its premiere a year ago. Regardless of what Lively did or did not say in response to questions by Wayfarer Studios co-founder Baldoni's lead lawyer Bryan Freedman and others, a letter from the Another Simple Favor star's own attorneys filed today in federal court makes it pretty clear in hindsight the July 31 sit-down did not go well. More from Deadline ADVERTISEMENT 'In rushing to file on the public docket the entirety of the 292-page transcript on the day they received it, with no plausible legal reason to do so, the Wayfarer Defendants and their counsel have proved Ms. Lively's point,' the correspondence Monday from Esra Hudson to Judge Lewis Liman says slamming Team Baldoni's blunt move and wanting everything permanently sealed ASAP. 'The transcript was ostensibly filed in support of their argument that there is no basis to assert that Bryan Freedman or his firm have participated in, fueled and advanced a smear campaign against Ms. Lively such that their conduct has 'amounted to public relations work rather than that of an attorney.' 'But, in fact, this tactic perfectly demonstrates the counsel-as-PR agent role because there is no conceivable legal purpose to file the whole transcript, particularly given that it has not been reviewed, corrected or finalized, and a mere two pages of it were cited in their argument,' the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP partner adds, also pointing the finger at Baldoni's side for 'immediately' leaking 'details from the deposition to the tabloid media.' Hudson adds: 'The letter and attachment should be seen for what they are: a manufactured excuse to force the transcript into the public domain as fodder for the Wayfarer Defendants' media campaign.' In an August 1 letter from Baldoni's side, which was filed the same day the depo transcript was under temporary seal, attorney Kevin Fritz certainly teases out what was said the day before. 'Upon questioning by Freedman at her recent deposition, Lively admitted that the only ongoing 'smear campaign' about which she has personal knowledge involves (redacted).' Among the details that were dribbled out of the meeting at Lively's lawyers' Manhattan offices last Thursday was what Lively was wearing, what time the deposition started (10:13 am ET) how husband Ryan Reynolds was there with her, what her side did and said, and that Baldoni himself was in the room. 'Consistent with their goal of creating a media circus around Ms. Lively's deposition, it also appears that the Wayfarer Defendants immediately leaked details from the deposition to the tabloid media,' Hudson's letter notes to Judge Liman, who has been short tempered about such actions in the past. Now, whether or not those leaks came from Team Baldoni or not, the fact is such info did quickly end up in the likes of the Daily Mail and TMZ, which have had a lot of Team Baldoni scoops over the past year. 'The narrative created was that Ms. Lively needed a large contingent of people with her to testify, while misleadingly suggesting that only Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Freedman were present for the deposition on their side,' today's three-page letter said. 'The reality is that Ms. Lively testified across the table from Mr. Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel, all of whom attended this deposition in person, as well as eight attorneys representing the Wayfarer and Wallace Parties, two of whom questioned her.' ADVERTISEMENT With Baldoni's $400 million countersuit tossed out in June and Deadpool star Reynolds, the New York Times and others dropped from the matter altogether, Lively's trial against Baldoni is set to start on March 9, 2026. At the same time, a sideshow of sorts is playing out in federal and California state court with the billionaire Sarowitz-backed-Baldoni battling insurance companies over covering his legal fees. And let's be honest, from the get-go, this whole case has been a media feeding feast with highs and lows, literally and figuratively. Also, truth be told, very soon after Lively filed her initial complaint with California's Civil Rights department last December, and saw it covered exclusively by the NYT, the actress accused Baldoni's legal team of playing to the media as much as the court docket in the clash between the duo and their inner circles. Both in and out of court, the often hard-nosed and media savvy (Hello Megyn Kelly) Freedman has become the magnet for most of this criticism with some bold moves and some ham-handed tactics (the Madison Square Garden crack as exhibit #1) Monday Lively's team had no comment on her lawyer's letter to Judge Liman, and reps for Baldoni could not be reached for comment. A rare case of duel silence in this high volume and high profile case. ADVERTISEMENT Later in the day, not for the first time and clearly for public consumption, Lively's lawyers filed a motion for sanctions against Freedman, claiming the successful LA-based attorney has frequently let loose with 'biased and inflammatory pre-trial indictments of Ms. Lively's character, credibility, and reputation' and 'publicly slandering' the actress, as they said in a slightly redacted memorandum of law accompanying the motion. Best of Deadline Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Los Angeles Times
20-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Is AI a Career Threat or a Competitive Edge for Attorneys?
Why Lawyers and Firms are Racing to Become Tech Experts As artificial intelligence promises to reshape the legal profession, much of the conversation centers on which jobs will disappear. But attorneys looking to secure their future may need to flip the script: Rather than viewing AI as a threat, successful lawyers are becoming subject matter experts in the technology itself. 'To be effective counselors, attorneys working at the forefront of innovation need to understand the relevant technology at a deep level,' said Zachary M. Briers, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP focusing on complex technology and intellectual property issues. 'When it comes to technology companies, almost all difficult legal issues turn on granular distinctions in technological advancements. This is particularly true with new platform technologies, such as AI, which defy conventional legal analyses,' Briers added. This need will only increase as litigation around artificial intelligence becomes more complex, according to Nathaniel L. Bach, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. 'The more a lawsuit or advice implicates the inner workings of an AI model, the more attorneys will need to know to properly advise clients, ask the right questions of adversaries, and explain the technology to courts in both accurate and persuasive ways,' said Bach. Having more than 'a surface-level understanding' of AI may even be a matter of professional competence, said Daniel B. Garrie, a mediator, arbitrator and special master with JAMS, an alternative dispute resolution provider. He is also a founder and partner of Law & Forensics, a legal engineering firm. 'Lawyers are ethically obligated to stay abreast of technological advancements under the ABA's Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8,' said Garrie. 'A deeper comprehension of how AI systems function, including their design, data dependencies, and operational limitations, is crucial for providing competent advice, particularly in areas like eDiscovery, data privacy and intellectual property disputes,' he continued. Beyond helping to win cases and complying with ethical obligations, understanding AI could be a major career booster. David Lisson, the head of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP's GenAI litigation initiative, said that the AI space represented a big opportunity for attorneys at the start of their career - a way to stand out from the pack. 'I always think the key to a successful junior associate is being an expert in something. And this is an area that you can really dig into,' he said. 'If you come and figure out what this model is doing and how it's doing it, you'll be the one that the senior attorney comes to, right? And you'll be the one that the client comes to because you're the one that understands what's actually going on.' From a branding perspective, at least, firms appear to understand the value in highlighting the AI credentials of their attorneys. Over the past two years, a flurry of AI practice groups has emerged in California and elsewhere. But experts, including those who head up these groups, acknowledge that this strategy will need to evolve. 'This trend has begun and will continue, but these groups will almost certainly evolve to be increasingly specialized over time, as it becomes clear that 'AI' is far too broad a category to usefully define a practice,' Keith Enright, cochair of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP's Artificial Intelligence Practice Group said. Bach said that AI practice groups were both 'a necessity and a calling card' for many firms. To be effective, these groups would need to encompass practice areas spanning intellectual property, privacy and technology. 'The AI space is too big and moves too fast for any one lawyer to know everything,' he said. That's a sentiment shared by Peter H. Werner, co-chair of Cooley LLP's global emerging companies and venture capital practice group. He said that the recent emergence of AI practice groups was 'similar to having an 'internet' practice group in the 1990s.' 'Some firms are forming 'AI practice groups' to signal to the market that they're focused on AI-related things. But the ubiquity of AI and related technologies will mean that the work that is done in every practice will be impacted by AI,' he said. He added that Cooley instead has 'an interdisciplinary, interdepartmental internal task force that's intended to be a clearinghouse to coordinate our work on AI-related matters, many of which implicate multiple practices.' Briers said that while 'most major firms now have a practice group that is dedicated to AI-related issues,' it was 'not enough that a few attorneys at each firm become familiar with this disruptive technology. It needs to be a firm-wide initiative.' Attorneys who wish to become AI-literate have options. Law schools appear attuned to the fact that there will be an increasing demand for such knowledge. A 2024 survey from the American Bar Association found that more than half of respondent schools now offer classes on AI. Many of these initial efforts focus on introducing students to the appropriate and ethical use of AI tools in their practice. However, some go further: UC Berkeley, for example, will begin offering a specialization in AI law and regulation this summer as part of its executive track LLM program, including a unit on the fundamentals of AI technology. The curriculum for the new certificate was designed in consultation with an advisory group of industry leaders, including representatives from Anthropic and Meta. Other schools are offering shorter standalone graduate certificates or programs in artificial intelligence for legal practitioners, including USC Gould School of Law and Harvard Law School. Beyond these programs, attorneys with an existing science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) background might be at an advantage to their colleagues in an AI world, though legal experts disagree on the significance of this. 'The shift to AI is indeed an opportunity for attorneys with a background in computer science, data science, or engineering areas to gain a distinct advantage in understanding the nuances of AI-related legal challenges,' Garrie said. 'As AI legal work often intersects with technical fields like cybersecurity, data analytics and software licensing, firms may increasingly value and recruit legal talent with such dual credentials. This intersectional expertise enhances both client trust and legal efficacy,' he added. Clinton Ehrlich, a partner at Trial Lawyers for Justice who is a member of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Artificial Intelligence Committee and has a computer science background, said lawyers working on AI cases or issues was analogous to lawyers working in the patent space, where many attorneys have a STEM background. 'This is an area of the law where skills are required beyond those that most generalists have,' Ehrlich said. 'It doesn't mean that a generalist couldn't be involved on a team that's litigating a case involving questions about AI, but I think it's very important to have at least one team member with really deep domain knowledge of how these systems work, so that you aren't just translating everything through the medium of popular science,' he said. Others were more circumspect, emphasizing that a willingness to learn and engage was far more important than prior education experience. Werner said that attorneys 'don't necessarily need a technical degree for most things, but you need curiosity. The best lawyers are quick studies. We work with cutting edge technology and life sciences companies, using complex methodologies to do complicated things.' He predicted that as the law and technology become increasingly intertwined, we could witness 'hybrid teams of people at firms that include lawyers and technologists that collectively pitch for and deliver service to clients – think e-discovery on steroids.' According to Enright, 'Intellectual fluidity and the ability to frame questions effectively will be vastly more valuable than a STEM background.' Vivek Mohan, the other co-chair of Gibson Dunn's artificial intelligence practice, said that whenever he talks to law students and recent graduates interested in the practice area, he tells them, 'I look for ongoing, demonstrated interest. Certainly, an undergraduate degree in a related area is a strong signal of interest.' But he cautioned that an attorney's role is 'not to substitute ourselves for the engineers or AI researchers at our companies. It is to listen carefully, ask probing questions and then provide the best legal advice we can.' He added that attorneys interested in AI should get comfortable with occasionally not knowing what is going on with AI models, given even their engineers are not always able to explain how a model reached a particular answer. 'Learn what you can, but you have to be able to get comfortable with operating in an environment that carries a certain degree of uncertainty,' he advised. The other risk of overemphasizing prior education? Instilling a sense that technological stasis is acceptable, said Briers. 'An engineering background might be helpful in understanding these new technologies, but it's not necessary. In my experience, too many attorneys who lack a STEM background use it as an excuse to not learn new technological skills. They do so to the detriment of their clients' interests,' he said. The Los Angeles/San Francisco Daily Journal is a publication for lawyers practicing in California, featuring updates on the courts, regulatory changes, the State Bar and the legal community at large.
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Blake Lively Accused Of Being A 'Bully' By Pro-Baldoni YouTubers After Her Latest 'Shocking' Legal Move
Blake Lively has drawn the ire of pro-Justin Baldoni influencers after subpoenaing Google to hand over personal information about them. The actress has been slammed as a "bully," with several of these influencers expressing their intention to fight the subpoena in court. They also speculated about Blake Lively's motives, with some suggesting she sent the subpoena in an attempt to prove a conspiracy theory that Justin Baldoni allegedly hired content creators to smear her. Blake Lively Subpoenaed Google To Give Her Information About Pro-Justin Baldoni Influencers If Blake Lively had been hoping to garner public sympathy in her ongoing sexual harassment lawsuit with Justin Baldoni, that now seems unlikely, given the backlash over her subpoena to Google for information about several pro-Justin Baldoni YouTubers. According to a Daily Mail report, the actress requested details about these individuals from the tech giant, including their bank information and a log of every session they had since May 1, 2024. Other personal information was also requested, such as home addresses and phone numbers. More than a dozen YouTubers were affected by the subpoena, including well-known figures like Candace Owens, as well as some lesser-known creators on the platform. These YouTubers reportedly received notice of the subpoenas via the email accounts linked to their Google profiles. Meanwhile, the notices indicated that they were sent from Esra Hudson, Lively's attorney, at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. YouTubers Labeled Blake Lively A 'Bully' After Receiving Subpoena Notice Reacting to the subpoena, one of the YouTubers, Andy Signore, host of the YouTube channel Popcorned Planet, slammed the actress as a "bully" who is trying to silence them. "It's shocking to be honest," Signore told the news outlet. "Not because I have anything to hide, but because she thinks she can just bully and intimidate independent journalists. I won't let her." He also stated that he plans to legally fight "all of it" rather than allow his information to be handed over to the actress. Florida-based Lauren Neidigh was also one of the YouTubers who received the subpoena notice. Speaking with the Daily Mail, she claimed she was "so shocked" when she saw it and had to reach over to her friends to look at the document before reaching a decision on her next step. "Now we've determined this is real and not a scam, I intend to file my own motion to quash and fight her myself," Neidigh said. The Influencers Hinted At Why Blake Lively Issued The Subpoenas Although Lively has yet to confirm the validity of the subpoena or the actual reason behind it, there is speculation that she intends to use the information to support claims that Baldoni allegedly hired content creators to smear her. "Maybe she thinks it'll show people were paid or benefiting in some way to cover her case, because she says the smear campaign is ongoing," Neidigh said. "That's absolutely not true. There's never been an incentive for me other than I'm interested in her lawsuit," Neidigh added Lively's alleged subpoena. YouTuber Claims The Actress Is Trying To Expose 'IEWU' Crew Members He Interviewed For His Documentary Meanwhile, Signore claimed that Lively is trying to unmask some of the crew members he interviewed for his documentary about the feud, titled "It Ends With Justice." "These crew members were disgusted by what Blake was putting out in the press about the filming, and they wanted to share their side. But they are terrified of being blacklisted by Ryan, CAA, etc," he shared. Signore added, "So, they appeared anonymously, blurred and with masks on to protect their identities. I believe Blake and Ryan want those sources. I will not betray those sources." The Judge Ruled In Favor Of Blake Lively To Choose The Deposition Location The revelation comes just hours after Lively won the right to choose the location for her deposition in the sexual harassment lawsuit. As reported by The Blast, Baldoni's attorneys had initially requested that the deposition be held at one of the law firms involved in the case. However, Lively's legal team argued against it in a motion, claiming the actress could be ambushed by paparazzi while arriving at or leaving the location. Although Baldoni's attorneys countered back with the argument that the actress was trying to use her celebrity status to influence the proceedings, the judge ultimately ruled in her favor. The location of the deposition remains unknown, as it was redacted from the publicly available transcript. Ahead of the deposition, both sides have been instructed to provide a list of the individuals who will be attending. Solve the daily Crossword
Politico
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
America's soccer dad has some advice for the White House
When the United States last hosted the men's soccer World Cup, Bill Clinton was president, the country did not have a professional league and its national team had competed in the tournament only twice in the previous half-century. Just five years earlier, the sport's governing body FIFA had snubbed an American bid to be the emergency host for the 1986 tournament. The man at the center of the nation's soccer breakthrough was Alan Rothenberg, an attorney at the politically well-connected Los Angeles law firm Manatt who helped organize the 1984 Olympics there. As president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, he served as chair and CEO of the 1994 World Cup and led the organization through a match four years later against Iran — a geopolitically contentious face-off that Rothenberg has called 'the mother of all games.' (He was also a founder of Major League Soccer and chair of the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup.) He has since advised FIFA through multiple tournaments including the 2002 World Cup hosted by Korea and Japan, the first to be played across national borders. Now, as the U.S. gears up to host the World Cup again, this time with matches being played in 16 cities across the U.S., Mexico and Canada, Rothenberg is watching from the sidelines. The 86-year-old has written a memoir of his soccer career, entitled The Big Bounce: The Surge that Shaped the Future of U.S. Soccer, to be published next year. But for now he has some advice for Andrew Giuliani, whom President Donald Trump has appointed to run the FIFA World Cup 2026 Task Force. A novel organizing structure, Rothenberg warns, could leave cities and states empty-handed.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas faces $3.77B in Medicaid cuts, thousands to lose coverage under Trump's bill: report
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Kansas will lose more than $3 billion in Medicaid funding, and thousands of Kansans will lose access to health insurance under Trump's proposed bill, according to a new report. New modeling shows 13,000 fewer Kansans would be able to enroll in Medicaid under the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' recently passed by the U.S. House, and the state would lose $3.77 billion in total Medicaid funding. Man charged in death of Platte County sports reporter shot on I-29 The modeling showed $2.29 billion in lost federal Medicaid funding alone—and $3.77 billion when combined with associated state funding losses over a 10-year period. Such losses would likely lead to higher uninsured rates and more financial struggles for rural hospitals already on the brink of closure. These results were recently released by Manatt Health, which conducted the analysis at the request of Kansas health philanthropies United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and REACH Healthcare Foundation. The two organizations wanted to better understand the financial and enrollment impacts of the bill, which would cut $700 billion from Medicaid and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. Medicaid, the public health insurance program that covers more than 366,000 Kansans, is funded jointly by the state and federal government. It provides low-income parents, children, seniors and people with disabilities with health insurance. Adults who do not have children do not qualify for Medicaid in Kansas. 'If this bill passes, it will cause long-lasting harm to thousands of families across Kansas and seriously threaten the survival of rural hospitals across the state,' said Brenda Sharpe, president and CEO at REACH Healthcare Foundation. The analysis shows Kansas will face significant coverage losses and funding reductions over the next 10 years. Manatt said the losses are even greater than shown in the analysis, as data limitations made it unable to model all the provisions in the bill. The estimates do not account for prohibitions on states setting up any new provider taxes or increasing assessments for other providers. That will cause Kansas health care providers, including nursing homes and other health providers, to lose critical funding over time and cause them to become even more financially vulnerable, Manatt said in a news release Wednesday. Coverage losses due to the bill's changes to the Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Marketplace also couldn't be modeled. However, they will result in additional Kansans losing health insurance, according to Manatt. Not only will the bill remove people's health insurance, it also will remove food assistance. The bill includes $300 billion in cuts from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 'Congress is trying to rush a plan through the process that will take health care and food assistance away from tens of thousands of Kansans, including children, seniors and people with disabilities,' said David Jordan, president and CEO at the Health Fund. 'At a time when hospitals are trying to keep their doors open and working families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, we cannot afford these cuts.' Kansas already has more hospitals at risk of closure than any other state in the country. A recent report from the University of Kansas School of Nursing highlights the growing 'maternal care desert' in Kansas. Manatt said 63 rural hospitals are currently at risk, and 87% of Kansas rural hospitals are operating in the red. These hospitals struggle to survive with existing federal funding – and provisions in the bill would cause them to lose billions, making it even harder to stay open. When rural hospitals close, it removes job opportunities and access to health care, creating a ripple effect in small communities, Manatt said. You can read the full report below or by clicking here. Medicaid-Cut-Impacts-to-KansasDownload Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
