Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni supporters are always so quick to post here about how Lively should be settling immediately. It’s so weird to me. Like, if you really believe he was wronged by Lively, wouldn’t you want to see that come out at trial? I kind of feel like you think he has public sentiment behind him rn so it’s a good place for him to stop, ha, before (more) damaging details come out, or he loses claims in the MTDs.

Not true. No one here has said that he should settle. What I’ve advocated is that it’s not going to reach a jury. I’ve also said that Baldoni should get his $400, based on them wanting to settle the case by paying him what he would get from a jury. That’s not him settling, but them wanting to settle.

[Anonymous]

$400 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni supporters are always so quick to post here about how Lively should be settling immediately. It’s so weird to me. Like, if you really believe he was wronged by Lively, wouldn’t you want to see that come out at trial? I kind of feel like you think he has public sentiment behind him rn so it’s a good place for him to stop, ha, before (more) damaging details come out, or he loses claims in the MTDs.

And we aren’t wrong - look at the embarrassment this has turned into for BL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Lol. Those MTD weren’t granted. Tiny difference, no?

Are you new here? The MTDs challenging most or all of Baldoni’s claims (and Lively’s claims against Jed Wallace) are briefed but not yet decided. Only bad things can happen there for Baldoni by his claims being thrown out. None of Lively’s are challenged besides Wallace. The judge has already signaled that there is a good chance Baldoni’s claims against deep pockets NYT will be dismissed.

You’re silly and trying to spin.

Not new. Just bc someone files a MTD doesn’t mean it will be granted. lol. Baldoni likely didn’t challenge her claims for strategic purposes, not bc they’re at all legit.

The NYT case is separate from livelys. That case could be thrown out and the one against her will survive. But I think the NYT case will survive in some form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni supporters are always so quick to post here about how Lively should be settling immediately. It’s so weird to me. Like, if you really believe he was wronged by Lively, wouldn’t you want to see that come out at trial? I kind of feel like you think he has public sentiment behind him rn so it’s a good place for him to stop, ha, before (more) damaging details come out, or he loses claims in the MTDs.

Not true. No one here has said that he should settle. What I’ve advocated is that it’s not going to reach a jury. I’ve also said that Baldoni should get his $400, based on them wanting to settle the case by paying him what he would get from a jury. That’s not him settling, but them wanting to settle.

DP. I don’t think any reasonable lawyer would expect him to get 400m at settlement. That’s not how it works typically. I think he should get a respectable low 7 figure number and if he’s feeling generous, he can agree to keep the number confidential. I think the others should get similar settlements. The fact is that juries often award amounts that are untethered from definable economic harm. The jury will put a large $ number on the backlash they all experienced. I’m sure the women got death threats and other harassing social media communications, as did he. All of that would be shown to a jury and it would make them highly sympathetic… and generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni supporters are always so quick to post here about how Lively should be settling immediately. It’s so weird to me. Like, if you really believe he was wronged by Lively, wouldn’t you want to see that come out at trial? I kind of feel like you think he has public sentiment behind him rn so it’s a good place for him to stop, ha, before (more) damaging details come out, or he loses claims in the MTDs.

Not true. No one here has said that he should settle. What I’ve advocated is that it’s not going to reach a jury. I’ve also said that Baldoni should get his $400, based on them wanting to settle the case by paying him what he would get from a jury. That’s not him settling, but them wanting to settle.

DP. I don’t think any reasonable lawyer would expect him to get 400m at settlement. That’s not how it works typically. I think he should get a respectable low 7 figure number and if he’s feeling generous, he can agree to keep the number confidential. I think the others should get similar settlements. The fact is that juries often award amounts that are untethered from definable economic harm. The jury will put a large $ number on the backlash they all experienced. I’m sure the women got death threats and other harassing social media communications, as did he. All of that would be shown to a jury and it would make them highly sympathetic… and generous.

Dp but expect he will get 8 or 9 figures, not seven, even with a settlement discount.There was a significant amount of reputational and emotional distress damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

I’m sure you can read and are aware that there are two categories of damages documents Wilkie sought and were not given. Each side got something they wanted from the judge’s decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.

Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.

Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.

Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Lol. Those MTD weren’t granted. Tiny difference, no?

Are you new here? The MTDs challenging most or all of Baldoni’s claims (and Lively’s claims against Jed Wallace) are briefed but not yet decided. Only bad things can happen there for Baldoni by his claims being thrown out. None of Lively’s are challenged besides Wallace. The judge has already signaled that there is a good chance Baldoni’s claims against deep pockets NYT will be dismissed.

You’re silly and trying to spin.

Not new. Just bc someone files a MTD doesn’t mean it will be granted. lol. Baldoni likely didn’t challenge her claims for strategic purposes, not bc they’re at all legit.

The NYT case is separate from livelys. That case could be thrown out and the one against her will survive. But I think the NYT case will survive in some form.

The judge has already told Freedman he has a serious group pleading problem and strongly suggested several times he should amend his shambolic complaint, which Freedman has declined to do. This suggests that many claims will be dismissed, and how many he will be permitted to replead is an open question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.

Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.

Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal

I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”

[Anonymous]

Just found this. Interesting:

https://www.realitytea.com/2025/05/16/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-relationship-break-private-chat-leak-blake-lively/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.

Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.

Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal

I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”

Well, they’re right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Lol. Those MTD weren’t granted. Tiny difference, no?

Are you new here? The MTDs challenging most or all of Baldoni’s claims (and Lively’s claims against Jed Wallace) are briefed but not yet decided. Only bad things can happen there for Baldoni by his claims being thrown out. None of Lively’s are challenged besides Wallace. The judge has already signaled that there is a good chance Baldoni’s claims against deep pockets NYT will be dismissed.

You’re silly and trying to spin.

Not new. Just bc someone files a MTD doesn’t mean it will be granted. lol. Baldoni likely didn’t challenge her claims for strategic purposes, not bc they’re at all legit.

The NYT case is separate from livelys. That case could be thrown out and the one against her will survive. But I think the NYT case will survive in some form.

The judge has already told Freedman he has a serious group pleading problem and strongly suggested several times he should amend his shambolic complaint, which Freedman has declined to do. This suggests that many claims will be dismissed, and how many he will be permitted to replead is an open question.

Are you Arlington mom? Talk to a litigator before you confine spouting off nonsense. All of this is normal and part of advocacy. None of it matters until decisions are actually made