Tim of thée

@RotoSurgeon Name 20+ WR better lmao

Most receiving yards on a single route in 2025, per @NextGenStats… 1. Bijan Robinson (Flat) - 432 2. Jameson Williams (Cross) - 357 3. Tee Higgins (Go) - 336 4. George Pickens (Slant) - 313 5. Nico Collins (Go) - 310 6. Alec Pierce (Go) - 300 7. Courtland Sutton (Go) - 291 8. Stefon Diggs (Cross) - 284 8. Ja’Marr Chase (Out) - 284 10. Jaxon Smith-Njigba (Go) - 279

EXCLUSIVE: Blake Lively Facing 'Brutal Tell-All' From Justin Baldoni as She Emerges the 'Utter Loser' From Their Bruising Legal Fight ebx.sh/a6uV5Q

WF’S OPPOSITION TO BL’S LETTER RE: 47.1 1️⃣ BACKGROUND (A) WHAT WAYFARER DEFENDANTS (WF) ASK THE COURT TO DO WF ask Judge Liman to: — Deny @blakelively’s (BL) request for further briefing. — Deny any evidentiary hearing or other proceedings on whether she is entitled to recover under Section 47.1. (B) WHAT BL REQUESTED WF argue that BL’s request is as an effort—after settlement—to: — File additional briefing “to address any impact of the Court’s intervening rulings” since the 47.1 motion was filed. — Propose procedures for adjudicating compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 2️⃣ WHAT SECTION 47.1 PROVIDES ACCORDING TO WF WF recite Section 47.1(b) as providing that a prevailing defendant in a defamation action over a privileged communication: — Is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for successful defense. — May recover treble damages for harm caused by the defamation action. — May recover punitive damages (and “any other relief otherwise permitted by law”). 3️⃣ PROCEDURAL & TIMING ARGUMENTS (A) THE KEY DEFAMATION CLAIM WAS DISMISSED LONG AGO; THE DEFENSE WAS “COMPLETED” WF emphasise the timeline to argue supplemental briefing is unnecessary: — The Court dismissed the Wayfarer Complaint, including the defamation cause of action against BL, on June 9, 2025. — BL’s renewed Section 47.1 motion was fully briefed by September 29, 2025. (B) BL PREVIOUSLY ARGUED THE COURT COULD DECIDE ENTITLEMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE (UNDERCUTTING NEED FOR MORE BRIEFING) WF point to BL’s own pretrial positions as inconsistent with her later request for supplemental briefing: — In her April 11, 2026 pretrial statement, BL urged the Court to decide the 47.1 motion before trial and set a schedule to quantify any award—without requesting further briefing. — At the April 28, 2026 pretrial conference, BL argued the Court could decide the legal question of retaliation (linked to the Section 47.1 relief theory) and that the Court “wouldn’t have to take evidence on it”—without requesting further briefing. 4️⃣ NO NO NO MRS LIVELY-REYNOLDS: THE REQUEST IS UNSUPPORTED (A) NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT “INTERVENING RULINGS” CHANGED WF’s central critique is that BL: — Does not identify the “impact” of any intervening rulings. — Does not explain why supplementation is needed now, particularly after the dismissal of the defamation claim. (B) NO PLAUSIBLE LINK BETWEEN POST-DISMISSAL RULINGS & COSTS OF DEFENDING THE DISMISSED CLAIM WF reject BL’s idea that later developments could affect: — Costs to defend a defamation claim that was already dismissed. (C) THE COURT AUTHORED THE INTERVENING RULINGS, SO EXTRA BRIEFING IS UNNECESSARY TO “EDUCATE” THE COURT WF add a pragmatic argument: — The Court does not need supplemental briefing to understand the impact of its own rulings on remedies tied to a defense completed by June 9, 2025. #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni