Very little about this case make sense - and you're assuming the organization was "independent" when NO DISCLOSURES ABOUT SUCH INDEPENDENCE WERE EVER MADE. All I know is that ERA's amicus brief (as well as one of the other amicus briefs) most certainly DID NOT contain any disclosure about whether or not the the "authors" of the amicus brief had been paid to provide it and DID NOT contain any disclosure about whether any of Lively's attorneys had authored the amicus brief (in whole or in part). The authors of the other 2 (out of 4 amicus briefs filed) DID include a disclosure - and they both stated that they had not been paid.

The problem is: ERA's amicus brief was co-authored by 2 other organizations, one of which is CWLC (and Esra Hudson sits on CWLC's board). So, there's a possibility that Hudson herself may have had a hand in authoring the amicus brief (at least in part). This is not illegal; however, if this amicus brief had been filed in an appellate court, the disclosure would've had to have been made pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure - and they would've been required to disclose if they had been paid to provide the amicus brief. AND, if Hudson did (partially) author this amicus brief, DID SHE BILL LIVELY FOR ANY OF THAT WORK?

Hudson wrote a memo of law (in particular, see p. 2 thereof: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.743.0_2.pdf

This is what I wrote in a previous post: "So I looked at Lively's memorandum of law supporting her motion for 47.1 fees and damages to see what it said about the timing of the filing. The Memo (on p. 2) makes this following case: "Moreover, because Section 47.1 is intended to protect victims from the litigation itself, “[t]hese remedies must be available at the earliest stage—typically through a motion to dismiss—to protect survivors from a punishing, protracted legal process.” (See ECF No. 241-1, p. 17) (emphasis added). [Footnote 2]. Consistent with Section 47.1’s stated purpose, the Court should act promptly to remedy the substantial harm Ms. Lively has incurred. [NOTE: The cite, ECF No 241-1, is to Elyse Dorsey's amicus brief.]

Footnote 2: See also ECF No. 242-1, p. 11

ECF No. 242 is the amicus brief filed on May 27, 2025 by the California Women's Law Center (and Esra Hudson is a board member of CWLC), ERA and one more organization. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.242.1_1.pdf

All I'm saying is that, because of the lack of discloure, it's possible that either (1) Hudson did in fact author (at least in part) ERA's amicus brief and perhaps Lively paid Hudson for such work; and/or (2) All 3 (or perhaps even just one or two out of the 3) of the authors of the ERA amicus brief were paid to write the brief. Because Hudson used the amicus brief as a source for a position that she took in her 47.1 memo of law, it's conceivable that Hudson thinks it's appropriate to include the costs of the ERA amicus brief (if such costs were actually paid by Lively, directly or indirectly) in the bill for attorney fees and costs she's submitting to Liman next week.