Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

That interview with that Noweigian journalist with the mocking of the baby bump and the sarcastic side convo with Parker Posey was just horrid. There are multiple interviews out there displaying what a smug woman child Blake actually is. Is she trying to be funny? And no, I would say the same about a smug man child as well, so I am not a misogynist. I was really indifferent to Blake Lively prior to seeing that interview, I now see her as entitled nepo baby brat that she is. There was absolutely no excuse for her behaving that way. It was disgraceful. This debacle with Justin just reinforces my negative opinion of her.

So I guess the Baldoni proposal video to his wife is adorbs and not smug, since you're not mentioning it at all.

Unlike big-backed Blake, Justin doesn’t have a negative reputation so her being a beast so a reporter isn’t shocking. So you’re right in narrow way, congratulations. Keep trying to make his proposal video happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

That interview with that Noweigian journalist with the mocking of the baby bump and the sarcastic side convo with Parker Posey was just horrid. There are multiple interviews out there displaying what a smug woman child Blake actually is. Is she trying to be funny? And no, I would say the same about a smug man child as well, so I am not a misogynist. I was really indifferent to Blake Lively prior to seeing that interview, I now see her as entitled nepo baby brat that she is. There was absolutely no excuse for her behaving that way. It was disgraceful. This debacle with Justin just reinforces my negative opinion of her.

So I guess the Baldoni proposal video to his wife is adorbs and not smug, since you're not mentioning it at all.

His proposal: Cringe
Her interviews: Cruel

PP has diagnosed Baldoni with being a bad feminist. She herself is a great feminist by proclamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.

Given that all the motions were decided in his favor it’s clear that Lively has no home court advantage. I really can’t believe her lawyers actually made the request to bar Freedman from deposing her. Such a bad look for both her and them. They obviously can’t control her.

How unusual is it for someone to ask their lawyer to make such a request? I understand it doesn't look good from a lay person's point of view, but like, from a legal standpoint, can you explain just how entitled such a request is?

It’s basically unprecedented. There is zero legal grounds for it which is why her lawyers put the request in a letter instead of a motion. To make it worse, they offered no reason at all for the request.

Bumping, let’s stick with the legal stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

That interview with that Noweigian journalist with the mocking of the baby bump and the sarcastic side convo with Parker Posey was just horrid. There are multiple interviews out there displaying what a smug woman child Blake actually is. Is she trying to be funny? And no, I would say the same about a smug man child as well, so I am not a misogynist. I was really indifferent to Blake Lively prior to seeing that interview, I now see her as entitled nepo baby brat that she is. There was absolutely no excuse for her behaving that way. It was disgraceful. This debacle with Justin just reinforces my negative opinion of her.

So I guess the Baldoni proposal video to his wife is adorbs and not smug, since you're not mentioning it at all.

His proposal: Cringe
Her interviews: Cruel

+1000 please try to find any documentation, interviews, etc. that portrays Justin as an entitled, malicious, sarcastic jerk. Please, if you can find one, it may bring him down to Blake’s level.

[Anonymous]

Is it wrong to experience schadenfreude to see someone who treats others like crap be brought down a few notches? Is it wrong to feel a sense of relief to see a mean girl be put in her place? Is that wrong?

[Anonymous]

I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

She also lied about the set being closed for the birthing scene, who was present on set, and what she was wearing. All easily disprovable facts.

DP from the prior two posters and not a bot - yes. She was remarkably dishonest throughout the filming. I’ve enjoyed the conversation on LSA which absolutely has the players dead to rights. And her reputation as a much more famous person is directly relevant because she set all of this off because she was deluded about her own popularity and angry that her hair and drink lines were not immediate smashing successes, and decided the movie publicity was at fault.

I honestly feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Feminism and our innate right to dignity at work is not the story here. She had two female ADs f’ing fired and the correspondence of the director and producers being upset about this is all over, unedited, online. She’s extraordinarily dishonest and abusive, not the reverse.

I keep seeing that on this thread. Do you have a link ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

NBC doesn't word things very clearly, but I think the judge is rejecting Freedman's request to depose Lively right away, not that he doesn't have the ability to depose her at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

She also lied about the set being closed for the birthing scene, who was present on set, and what she was wearing. All easily disprovable facts.

DP from the prior two posters and not a bot - yes. She was remarkably dishonest throughout the filming. I’ve enjoyed the conversation on LSA which absolutely has the players dead to rights. And her reputation as a much more famous person is directly relevant because she set all of this off because she was deluded about her own popularity and angry that her hair and drink lines were not immediate smashing successes, and decided the movie publicity was at fault.

I honestly feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Feminism and our innate right to dignity at work is not the story here. She had two female ADs f’ing fired and the correspondence of the director and producers being upset about this is all over, unedited, online. She’s extraordinarily dishonest and abusive, not the reverse.

I keep seeing that on this thread. Do you have a link ?

"3. Lively shared her grievances about the 1st AD suggested that she be replaced. (She and
the 2nd AD, who is also a woman, were shortly thereafter let go)."

Page 32

Other pages mentioning the firing of the AD: Page 35, 37

https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/timeline-of-relevant-events.pdf

[Anonymous]

This is a really good summary of today's hearing. It was neither a big win for either side nor a terrible day for either side.

https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7467272021399899438

Quick summary:
- Lively's protective order (what the press keeps calling a "gag order") was rejected.
- The judge did say that all parties are now subject to New York ethics rules since the cases have been consolidated in NY. He also said that if the parties tried to try the case in the press or were talking about the case a ton in the press, he might move the trial date up, so that probably will have a tempering impact on both sides in terms of comments to the press. The lawyer in the video above notes that both sides have a ton of discovery they want so no one is going to want to move up the trial.
- Baldoni's team had requested to depose Lively immediately even though responses haven't been filed yet. The judge rejected that request and said Lively could be deposed when discovery begins in earnest.
- However Lively's request not to be deposed by Freedman (lol but shoot your hot kid!) was rejected, as even any first year law students would have expected.
- Lively's team made a bit of a stink about some of the attachments in Baldoni's amended complaint. The judge apparently did give Freedman a bit of a hard time about this, and Lively's lawyers said they might file a Rule 11 challenge on that. We'll see.
- Lively's team said she'd be filing an amended complaint by the 14th, judge said fine.
- Lively's team told the judge that in anticipation that some of the third-party depositions in the case might be of very high profile people, they will be requesting a protective order to potentially keep some of those depositions out of the public record. Judge said that he would entertain that petition and told them to draft it. I'm guessing it will be a situation where they selectively seal certain depositions in case Freedman asks questions that could be embarrassing to the person being deposed but are not strictly relevant to the case but I don't know. The judge didn't seem opposed to it.

So pretty procedural. I don't understand these comment saying "Lively lost all the motions." This was basically a status hearing with a couple competing requests from the parties. Both sides got denied things they wanted (and that they were likely never going to get anyway). But probably they didn't expect to get those things anyway. Often lawyers make motions like that more to be able to get certain arguments on the record than because they think it will happen. I don't think anyone "won" the hearing and it doesn't sound like the judge is mad at anyone. It sounds like it was pretty drama free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

She also lied about the set being closed for the birthing scene, who was present on set, and what she was wearing. All easily disprovable facts.

DP from the prior two posters and not a bot - yes. She was remarkably dishonest throughout the filming. I’ve enjoyed the conversation on LSA which absolutely has the players dead to rights. And her reputation as a much more famous person is directly relevant because she set all of this off because she was deluded about her own popularity and angry that her hair and drink lines were not immediate smashing successes, and decided the movie publicity was at fault.

I honestly feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Feminism and our innate right to dignity at work is not the story here. She had two female ADs f’ing fired and the correspondence of the director and producers being upset about this is all over, unedited, online. She’s extraordinarily dishonest and abusive, not the reverse.

I keep seeing that on this thread. Do you have a link ?

"3. Lively shared her grievances about the 1st AD suggested that she be replaced. (She and
the 2nd AD, who is also a woman, were shortly thereafter let go)."

Page 32

Other pages mentioning the firing of the AD: Page 35, 37

https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/timeline-of-relevant-events.pdf

PP his complaint doesn't make things clear about what happened with the 2nd AD. Yes, it states she was let go on page 32, but the other pages only seem to mention the first AD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.

Given that all the motions were decided in his favor it’s clear that Lively has no home court advantage. I really can’t believe her lawyers actually made the request to bar Freedman from deposing her. Such a bad look for both her and them. They obviously can’t control her.

How unusual is it for someone to ask their lawyer to make such a request? I understand it doesn't look good from a lay person's point of view, but like, from a legal standpoint, can you explain just how entitled such a request is?

It’s basically unprecedented. There is zero legal grounds for it which is why her lawyers put the request in a letter instead of a motion. To make it worse, they offered no reason at all for the request.

It is unprecedented but that’s not why the request was put in by letter. Many judges have premotion letter requirements.