Roman Schatow @schatow

@rockenrollah Try this please 👇🏿

Roman Schatow @schatow

5 days ago

@PastNomad @aaronxperez Hudson... all her bills Gottlieb... only in defense of the Wayfarer Action 🤷🤷

1 0 3 205 0

Order of 11 May 2026 re: #MichaelGottlieb's motion for attorneys’ fees & costs This recent SDNY order is a fascinating read for anyone following fee motions—particularly because it addresses a motion filed by our "favourite" #MichaelGottlieb after the court found that a party had intentionally spoliated electronically stored information (ESI). The court applied familiar lodestar principles, scrutinised hourly rates and billing records, reduced both rates and hours where the evidentiary record was lacking, and ultimately imposed across-the-board cuts on the fee request. That makes for some interesting reading in light of #MichaelGottlieb's own pending attorneys' fees motion in the Blake Lively v. Wayfarer litigation. 1️⃣ Missing information about dozens of timekeepers Over the last two days, I pointed out that Willkie Farr and Manatt billed time for more than 35 additional individuals—including associates, paralegals, litigation support professionals, document review attorneys, librarians, and other legal personnel. Yet the fee motion provides no explanation of: — their hourly rates; — their specific roles; — their years of experience; or — their qualifications. Now compare that with what this SDNY judge had to say when faced with a similar record: "...has not provided any evidence to support the reasonableness of the rates tendered for several of the lawyers and staff—specifically, all associates and paralegals—who worked on this matter." "It has not even provided the most basic information necessary to assess the reasonableness of rates: the years of experience of the particular attorneys and the type of experience they have had." "Inexplicably, [Plaintiff] has not provided any information regarding the experience of these attorneys and staff members." "As a result, the Court is left with no information about the experience level of any of the associates or paralegals and no basis to determine the reasonableness of their rates as compared to the rates of associates with similar experience at other firms." The court followed well-established SDNY practice: when the documentation is insufficient, an across-the-board reduction is appropriate. Result: a 15% reduction in Willkie Farr's hourly rates. 2️⃣ Even #MichaelGottlieb's rates weren't immune The court also reviewed the billing rates charged by partners Michael Gottlieb and Jeffrey Korn. Their hourly rates ranged from $1,317.50 to $1,974 between December 2022 and early 2026. The court concluded that those rates were modestly above what it had recently found reasonable for comparable Manhattan big-law partners and applied the same 15% rate reduction to them. Now compare those figures with the rates claimed in the Blake Lively v. Wayfarer fee motion: Michael J. Gottlieb: $2,350/hour (Q1–Q3 2025) $2,795/hour (since Q4 2025) discounted average rate: $2,187/hour Those numbers certainly make for an interesting comparison. 3️⃣ "Attention to..." strikes again The opposing party argued that #MichaelGottlieb's billing entries were vague and inadequately described. The court agreed. It found that Willkie Farr's billing records reflected: — excess, — duplication, and — vagueness. Among the examples, the court criticised entries beginning with the ever-helpful phrase: "attention to..." such as: "attention to motion for reconsideration" and "attention to emails." The court also observed that some entries appeared specific at first glance but still failed to explain what work had actually been performed: "Other entries at first appear detailed but in conjunction with the time billed is quite vague as to what was done." One example involved an entry stating simply that counsel had "prepared" something: "Whether 6.2 hours may be deemed reasonable cannot be assessed without knowing what the vague term 'prepare' encompassed." The court also questioned examples such as spending roughly 19 hours drafting a three-page letter motion requesting an extension of a stay. Result: another 15% across-the-board reduction—this time to Willkie Farr's hours. And now, just for fun... How many billing entries in #MichaelGottlieb's fee spreadsheet submitted in the Blake Lively v. Wayfarer litigation begin with the phrase "attention to"? 581. Apparently, "attention" is billable according to #MichaelGottlieb. 4️⃣ The math Willkie Farr sought: — 1,823.30 hours — $1,850,444.87 in fees The court applied: — 15% reduction to hourly rates, and — 15% reduction to hours (described overall as roughly a 30% reduction). Final award to Wilkie Farr: $1,332,199.80. Now compare that with the fee motion filed in the Blake Lively v. Wayfarer litigation. @blakelively seeks $7,495,526 in attorneys' fees: — $4,544,094 for Wilkie Farr, and — $2,951,432 for co-counsel Manatt. Curiously, despite seeking nearly $7.5 million, the fee motion does not disclose the total number of hours billed by either firm. After all, if you're asking a court to award millions in fees, one might think the total hours worked would qualify as a fairly basic data point 🤷🤷 URL (DECISION AND ORDER: SANCTIONS FEE AWARD): ⬇️ storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni

Roman Schatow @schatow

6 days ago

BL'S 47.1 FEE MOTION @blakelively's motion argues that California Civil Code § 47.1 mandates shifting all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in successfully defending the litigation brought against her—contending that (1) she is a prevailing defendant, (2) the

15 9 61 26K 3

@TehranKnight Thanks!!

THE SELF-EXPLANATORY VIDEO ABOUT ⬇️ #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni

Roman Schatow @schatow

6 days ago

BL'S 47.1 FEE MOTION @blakelively's motion argues that California Civil Code § 47.1 mandates shifting all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in successfully defending the litigation brought against her—contending that (1) she is a prevailing defendant, (2) the

15 9 61 26K 3

@DM_Maureen_ That’s fucking hilarious!!

@Polly01001011 Thanks—that was more entertaining than I expected it to be 😁😁😁😁

@DailyMail @VancityReynolds 👇🏿👇🏿

@rockenrollah 👇🏿👇🏿

Roman Schatow @schatow

4 days ago

@PastNomad @aaronxperez I don't want to speculate or argue. I'm simply looking at what the available documents show. Based on the invoice spreadsheet, together with the fact that Gottlieb SPECIFICALLY referred to the Wayfarer action—and made no mention of the Lively action—it appears that the uninvoiced

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

1 0 1 75 0

I want to take a closer look at some California Court of Appeal decisions on anti-SLAPP motions. But if I were BF, I would structure WF’s response to BL’s fee motion differently—split it into two distinct parts. First, a categorical denial in its entirety. Second, a fallback position that nevertheless engages with the substance point-by-point, addressing each shit with concrete examples. Then, rather than over-arguing it, I would simply leave Judge Liman with a clear, anchored comparison: here is one defamation claim and what was ultimately awarded in attorneys’ fees and costs in a comparable case. The implicit message would be hard to miss—if this is the kind of theory being advanced, is the court really being invited to function as a de facto audit expert on speculative and vague billable spreadsheet exhibit?

@rockenrollah My theory is: one side has been paid, and the other hasn’t. That difference alone explains a lot of what we’re seeing. I’m with NAG on that reading of the situation.

I think there are two points of tension between Esra and Michael that are hard to ignore: (1) Michael’s own firm was the one that dug into Esra and Blake over the alleged perjury issues. (2) Esra is now leaning on Michael’s fee motion, where the court itself slashed nearly $600,000 from his fees, explicitly flagging sloppy work.

@jfully19 Ruined their friendship 😨😨… let’s be honest, RR & BL are the ones who broke it.

@rockenrollah Gottlieb?! Esra & Michael’s handling of this legal mess reflects a pattern of misleading statements and questionable judgment… they’re sneaky, sleazy and I really can’t stand them.

@KellyBollig1 @blakelively It’s so stupid… imo.

If you're wondering how I stumbled across this order ⬇️, credit goes to the ever-so-sneaky (and naughty) #EsraHudson. In @blakelively 's 47.1 fee motion, she cites this very decision: "As one Judge in this District recently held (in a case involving a Willkie fee application), because 'a reasonable rate is what a paying client would be willing to pay for counsel to litigate the case effectively, the fact that [the client] actually paid the fees charged... is a strong indicator of the reasonableness of those rates.'" PDV USA, Inc. v. Interamerican Consulting Inc., 2026 WL 1283316, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2026) (cleaned up). Interesting choice of authority: My question is: why stop reading at page 4?... Esra!! The same order went on to review 244 pages of Willkie Farr billing records and concluded they reflected excess, duplication, and vagueness. The court reduced Willkie's hourly rates by 15%, reduced its compensable hours by 15%, and ultimately cut the firm's requested fees by roughly 30% overall. I suppose that's one interpretation of "(cleaned up)." Personally, I'd call it VERY THOURUGHLY cleaned up 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️ #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni

Roman Schatow @schatow

2 days ago

Order of 11 May 2026 re: #MichaelGottlieb's motion for attorneys’ fees & costs This recent SDNY order is a fascinating read for anyone following fee motions—particularly because it addresses a motion filed by our "favourite" #MichaelGottlieb after the court found that a party

3 3 28 6K 2

@jfully19 @kelcebrothers Some Swifties are nuts!!

@halosfangigi 💯 and 👇🏿

Roman Schatow @schatow

a day ago

Building a castle inside Madison Square Garden… because apparently a real castle wasn’t dramatic enough, even though they could’ve just booked one. Nothing says romance like turning Madison Square Garden into a DIY fairytale set 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️

1 0 14 821 0

One thing's for sure about that wedding: it was tacky... and so overwhelmingly white it made my ass look tan!! 🍑🍑🍑🍑

New York Post @nypost

4 days ago

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding menu uncovered as lobster, French fries, Krispy Kreme, and more are delivered to MSG trib.al/8ejJcaa

112 78 649 273K 91

@sallysmith7576 @SaneVirtually I’ve had a couple of those in my comments—they’re nuts!!

This lawsuit has officially entered its never-ending story era!!

Inner City Press @innercitypress

a day ago

In E. Jean Carroll v Trump, motion for more time to response to motion denied on July 4. Inner City Press on the case(s), Trump Verdict amazon.com/Trump-Trial-Ma…

10 116 336 32K 11

@yeschefnahchef @blakelively 💯

AH's fans are already trying to rewrite the narrative. The fact is that @blakelively & her hubby weren't at TS's wedding. Now this person 👇🏽 says, "When will you people learn that you only see celebrities when they want to be seen?" Okay, sure. Then how do you explain the photos of Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds at a horse show more than 200 miles away around the same time? What an astonishing coincidence!

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

mezcal era @macrodos3

2 days ago

when will you people learn that you only see celebrities when they want to be seen

0 0 18 7K 1

MORON, First Class: @ShivRoytheThird knows fuck all about the case, yet still decided to bless everyone with this absolute shit take: "The fact you think she actually lost anything lmmmaaao. His crisis PR is working. It’s clear as day that part is true." Then, like clockwork, blocked me before I could reply. Nothing screams "I'm confident in my argument" quite like dropping a comment and immediately running away. Too bad blocking me doesn't erase your bullshit. I can still see your shit, and everyone else can too. So let's deal in facts instead of made-up shit: All of Lively’s federal claims (e.g., Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation, California Labor Code claims) dismissed. State law claims for sexual harassment, defamation, false light, and conspiracy dismissed. Claims against most individual defendants (such as Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel) dismissed. After months of breathless claims about some massive coordinated smear campaign, what did the court actually find? No liability. No admissions of wrongdoing. No conspiracy proven. Just a mountain of online bullshit collapsing under the weight of the actual court record. So here's a wild idea: read the filings before talking shit. Court documents don't give a damn about your fan fiction or your feelings. Blocking people doesn't make you right—it just advertises that you can't defend your own bullshit, Moron—@ShivRoytheThird! #ShivRoytheThird_moron 🖕🖕 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Roman Schatow @schatow

2 days ago

@shivlestat Not sure what you’re talking about—a federal judge in New York already took care of that part when @blakelively’s sexual harassment claims were dismissed.

1 0 81 9K 0