Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is spinning going on for sure, but it's on Baldoni's side.

Last week, Freedman alleged that Blake Lively had asked Taylor Swift to delete evidence from her phone, and that Blake's lawyer threatened to release embarrassing things about Taylor if Taylor didn't release a supportive statement for Blake. Freedman claimed that THIS was the reason for his subpoenas of Swift and her lawyer.

But now, Freedman is telling the Daily Mail and TMZ that they "got what they needed." Only... suddenly there is no reference at all to those allegations of threats and spoliation of evidence. Here's TMZ:

Sources with direct knowledge tell us ... Baldoni's side dropped the subpoena after information was voluntarily provided to them.
Other sources, also in the know, say this "confirms the validity of the statement made last week that Taylor's involvement with this film was licensing a song.”

So suddenly the thing Freedman and Baldoni were trying to prove with their multiple subpoenas of Swift and her legal team was... that Swift was not directly involved in making this movie?

What does that have to do with this lawsuit? How does it show that Baldoni didn't SH Blake or try to retaliate against her? How does it prove Baldoni's defamation or extortion claims?

Blake has claimed all along that Taylor has nothing to do with this case and that focus on her is a distraction from the actual claims. And now today Freedman is claiming, victoriously, that they've just received evidence that proves Taylor Swift has nothing to do with this case. Congrats, dude?

Nothing about Lively's case rests on Taylor Swift. I'm sure whatever is going on with their friendship is important to Blake and who even knows, but from a legal perspective, it's irrelevant. The only person tryin to drag Taylor into this case was Baldoni, and now he's claiming that he was only trying to drag her in for the purposes of showing it has nothing to do with her?

Please.

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/22/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-wishes-she-never-met-blake-lively-after-justin-baldoni-drama-report/?_gl=1*176criv*_ga*NjcyMDQxNzE3LjE3NDgwMDc2OTU.*_ga_0DZ7LHF5PZ*czE3NDgwMDc2OTQkbzEkZzEkdDE3NDgwMDc4MzIkajE5JGwwJGgwJGRjT0FwSk9YOWFhdVlpSEhTTlN6TlZmY2J6djFDVzN6NGZn

That’s not true. The also said they got what they needed on the witness tampering extortion claim and it’s now with the court.

[Anonymous]

Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is spinning going on for sure, but it's on Baldoni's side.

Last week, Freedman alleged that Blake Lively had asked Taylor Swift to delete evidence from her phone, and that Blake's lawyer threatened to release embarrassing things about Taylor if Taylor didn't release a supportive statement for Blake. Freedman claimed that THIS was the reason for his subpoenas of Swift and her lawyer.

But now, Freedman is telling the Daily Mail and TMZ that they "got what they needed." Only... suddenly there is no reference at all to those allegations of threats and spoliation of evidence. Here's TMZ:

Sources with direct knowledge tell us ... Baldoni's side dropped the subpoena after information was voluntarily provided to them.
Other sources, also in the know, say this "confirms the validity of the statement made last week that Taylor's involvement with this film was licensing a song.”

So suddenly the thing Freedman and Baldoni were trying to prove with their multiple subpoenas of Swift and her legal team was... that Swift was not directly involved in making this movie?

What does that have to do with this lawsuit? How does it show that Baldoni didn't SH Blake or try to retaliate against her? How does it prove Baldoni's defamation or extortion claims?

Blake has claimed all along that Taylor has nothing to do with this case and that focus on her is a distraction from the actual claims. And now today Freedman is claiming, victoriously, that they've just received evidence that proves Taylor Swift has nothing to do with this case. Congrats, dude?

Nothing about Lively's case rests on Taylor Swift. I'm sure whatever is going on with their friendship is important to Blake and who even knows, but from a legal perspective, it's irrelevant. The only person tryin to drag Taylor into this case was Baldoni, and now he's claiming that he was only trying to drag her in for the purposes of showing it has nothing to do with her?

Please.

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/22/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-wishes-she-never-met-blake-lively-after-justin-baldoni-drama-report/?_gl=1*176criv*_ga*NjcyMDQxNzE3LjE3NDgwMDc2OTU.*_ga_0DZ7LHF5PZ*czE3NDgwMDc2OTQkbzEkZzEkdDE3NDgwMDc4MzIkajE5JGwwJGgwJGRjT0FwSk9YOWFhdVlpSEhTTlN6TlZmY2J6djFDVzN6NGZn

That’s not true. The also said they got what they needed on the witness tampering extortion claim and it’s now with the court.

How is that possibly true when they clearly haven’t filed anything with the court? That just made the article seem misinformed and/or like a total lie to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

It was the CA complaint that triggered the investigation, not the never filed legend complaint a year earlier. Perhaps if she had gone through SAG when Sony said it had no jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Also, Judge Liman actually granted an extension of time, lol: until next Wednesday for journalist Vituscka’s attorney (consented to by Sloan). This is a whole 5 days! (Though three of them are weekend/holidays.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

It was the CA complaint that triggered the investigation, not the never filed legend complaint a year earlier. Perhaps if she had gone through SAG when Sony said it had no jurisdiction.

Because clearly when your director has screwed up enough such that he signs a 17 point statement agreeing not to further engage in certain harassing behaviors, your HR department just sits on its hands and figures that everything is fine. They clearly had NO IDEA anything bad had happened on set!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is spinning going on for sure, but it's on Baldoni's side.

Last week, Freedman alleged that Blake Lively had asked Taylor Swift to delete evidence from her phone, and that Blake's lawyer threatened to release embarrassing things about Taylor if Taylor didn't release a supportive statement for Blake. Freedman claimed that THIS was the reason for his subpoenas of Swift and her lawyer.

But now, Freedman is telling the Daily Mail and TMZ that they "got what they needed." Only... suddenly there is no reference at all to those allegations of threats and spoliation of evidence. Here's TMZ:

Sources with direct knowledge tell us ... Baldoni's side dropped the subpoena after information was voluntarily provided to them.
Other sources, also in the know, say this "confirms the validity of the statement made last week that Taylor's involvement with this film was licensing a song.”

So suddenly the thing Freedman and Baldoni were trying to prove with their multiple subpoenas of Swift and her legal team was... that Swift was not directly involved in making this movie?

What does that have to do with this lawsuit? How does it show that Baldoni didn't SH Blake or try to retaliate against her? How does it prove Baldoni's defamation or extortion claims?

Blake has claimed all along that Taylor has nothing to do with this case and that focus on her is a distraction from the actual claims. And now today Freedman is claiming, victoriously, that they've just received evidence that proves Taylor Swift has nothing to do with this case. Congrats, dude?

Nothing about Lively's case rests on Taylor Swift. I'm sure whatever is going on with their friendship is important to Blake and who even knows, but from a legal perspective, it's irrelevant. The only person tryin to drag Taylor into this case was Baldoni, and now he's claiming that he was only trying to drag her in for the purposes of showing it has nothing to do with her?

Please.

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/22/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-wishes-she-never-met-blake-lively-after-justin-baldoni-drama-report/?_gl=1*176criv*_ga*NjcyMDQxNzE3LjE3NDgwMDc2OTU.*_ga_0DZ7LHF5PZ*czE3NDgwMDc2OTQkbzEkZzEkdDE3NDgwMDc4MzIkajE5JGwwJGgwJGRjT0FwSk9YOWFhdVlpSEhTTlN6TlZmY2J6djFDVzN6NGZn

That’s not true. The also said they got what they needed on the witness tampering extortion claim and it’s now with the court.

How is that possibly true when they clearly haven’t filed anything with the court? That just made the article seem misinformed and/or like a total lie to me.

Given that Liman slapped his hand for putting it in a publicly accessible letter last time, I don’t think we’ll see it on the docket this time around. But BF said it’s now with the court, so he must’ve reported it in some way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

It was the CA complaint that triggered the investigation, not the never filed legend complaint a year earlier. Perhaps if she had gone through SAG when Sony said it had no jurisdiction.

Because clearly when your director has screwed up enough such that he signs a 17 point statement agreeing not to further engage in certain harassing behaviors, your HR department just sits on its hands and figures that everything is fine. They clearly had NO IDEA anything bad had happened on set!!!

There is an email attached to her own complaint regarding that statement where Blake says she does nit want to pursue a sexual harasssment complaint at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is spinning going on for sure, but it's on Baldoni's side.

Last week, Freedman alleged that Blake Lively had asked Taylor Swift to delete evidence from her phone, and that Blake's lawyer threatened to release embarrassing things about Taylor if Taylor didn't release a supportive statement for Blake. Freedman claimed that THIS was the reason for his subpoenas of Swift and her lawyer.

But now, Freedman is telling the Daily Mail and TMZ that they "got what they needed." Only... suddenly there is no reference at all to those allegations of threats and spoliation of evidence. Here's TMZ:

Sources with direct knowledge tell us ... Baldoni's side dropped the subpoena after information was voluntarily provided to them.
Other sources, also in the know, say this "confirms the validity of the statement made last week that Taylor's involvement with this film was licensing a song.”

So suddenly the thing Freedman and Baldoni were trying to prove with their multiple subpoenas of Swift and her legal team was... that Swift was not directly involved in making this movie?

What does that have to do with this lawsuit? How does it show that Baldoni didn't SH Blake or try to retaliate against her? How does it prove Baldoni's defamation or extortion claims?

Blake has claimed all along that Taylor has nothing to do with this case and that focus on her is a distraction from the actual claims. And now today Freedman is claiming, victoriously, that they've just received evidence that proves Taylor Swift has nothing to do with this case. Congrats, dude?

Nothing about Lively's case rests on Taylor Swift. I'm sure whatever is going on with their friendship is important to Blake and who even knows, but from a legal perspective, it's irrelevant. The only person tryin to drag Taylor into this case was Baldoni, and now he's claiming that he was only trying to drag her in for the purposes of showing it has nothing to do with her?

Please.

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/22/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-wishes-she-never-met-blake-lively-after-justin-baldoni-drama-report/?_gl=1*176criv*_ga*NjcyMDQxNzE3LjE3NDgwMDc2OTU.*_ga_0DZ7LHF5PZ*czE3NDgwMDc2OTQkbzEkZzEkdDE3NDgwMDc4MzIkajE5JGwwJGgwJGRjT0FwSk9YOWFhdVlpSEhTTlN6TlZmY2J6djFDVzN6NGZn

That’s not true. The also said they got what they needed on the witness tampering extortion claim and it’s now with the court.

How is that possibly true when they clearly haven’t filed anything with the court? That just made the article seem misinformed and/or like a total lie to me.

Given that Liman slapped his hand for putting it in a publicly accessible letter last time, I don’t think we’ll see it on the docket this time around. But BF said it’s now with the court, so he must’ve reported it in some way.

The solution for that problem is to file it under seal. Then it isn't public. You are wrong that Bryan Freedman has said it is with the court, because that article isn't sourced to Freedman. It just seems to be someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

It was the CA complaint that triggered the investigation, not the never filed legend complaint a year earlier. Perhaps if she had gone through SAG when Sony said it had no jurisdiction.

Because clearly when your director has screwed up enough such that he signs a 17 point statement agreeing not to further engage in certain harassing behaviors, your HR department just sits on its hands and figures that everything is fine. They clearly had NO IDEA anything bad had happened on set!!!

Blake was represented by legal counsel at that time, I think Manatt, and she explicitly waived filing a formal complaint in exchange for everyone getting back to work. How convenient that she and Manatt are now claiming there was some duty to investigate that WF failed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

It was the CA complaint that triggered the investigation, not the never filed legend complaint a year earlier. Perhaps if she had gone through SAG when Sony said it had no jurisdiction.

Because clearly when your director has screwed up enough such that he signs a 17 point statement agreeing not to further engage in certain harassing behaviors, your HR department just sits on its hands and figures that everything is fine. They clearly had NO IDEA anything bad had happened on set!!!

Blake was represented by legal counsel at that time, I think Manatt, and she explicitly waived filing a formal complaint in exchange for everyone getting back to work. How convenient that she and Manatt are now claiming there was some duty to investigate that WF failed to do.

And isn’t it convenient when to hire a firm to “investigate” your alleged wrongdoing while litigation is underway so that the attorney running that investigation can sit in on the interviews you conduct with the people he represents and know exactly what they are saying, and would likely also receive reports about other interviews he did not attend, and yet this investigation is somehow “neutral” and your own attorneys would receive none of these materials because they are “privileged” lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hudson has filed a request for leave to reply to the opposition re the employment investigation, noting they have filed a priv log as requested and that privilege log is a total joke.

Is this related to the witness tampering? Did BF report it under seal or something?

No, not at all related to the Bryan Freedman allegations. It’s related to the investigation Wayfarer hired a firm to conduct in January on the SH allegations, like 18 months after they are alleged to have occurred.

It was the CA complaint that triggered the investigation, not the never filed legend complaint a year earlier. Perhaps if she had gone through SAG when Sony said it had no jurisdiction.

Because clearly when your director has screwed up enough such that he signs a 17 point statement agreeing not to further engage in certain harassing behaviors, your HR department just sits on its hands and figures that everything is fine. They clearly had NO IDEA anything bad had happened on set!!!

Blake was represented by legal counsel at that time, I think Manatt, and she explicitly waived filing a formal complaint in exchange for everyone getting back to work. How convenient that she and Manatt are now claiming there was some duty to investigate that WF failed to do.

And isn’t it convenient when to hire a firm to “investigate” your alleged wrongdoing while litigation is underway so that the attorney running that investigation can sit in on the interviews you conduct with the people he represents and know exactly what they are saying, and would likely also receive reports about other interviews he did not attend, and yet this investigation is somehow “neutral” and your own attorneys would receive none of these materials because they are “privileged” lol.

Do, She had the opportunity to ask for an investigation while represented by Counsel and declined. Maybe she should fire the lawyer who gave that advice. Or maybe she declined because the claims were fabricated to give her bargaining chips.

In any case, are you arguing that the filing of the CA complaint did not trigger a duty to investigate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's impossible to know what to think without knowing what was produced. I could see a situation where Taylor produced something very damaging as part of a deal, and then Freedman withdrew the subpoenas and Venable withdrew their motion.

I could also see a situation where Taylor produced basically nothing and it's the same outcome.

I think Freedman would claim victory either way, which is part of his job here.

So this is a wait and see for me. It doesn't look *good* for Blake but I continue not to understand what Swift has to do with anything in the actual lawsuit so I don't really get how it's bad for her either. But who knows.

You can’t understand that Taylor issuing a statement of support for Blake would have a huge impact on public opinion around this case? It would quite literally be a game changer.

I guess? I am primarily interested in the legal side, and I don't see how any info she could produce would help or hurt either one because, by her own admission, she wasn't really involved. I get that her name grabs headlines but beyond that I don't see the relevancy. I don't care about her friendship with Blake.

Part of the narrative they want to establish on Blake is that she is a liar. They want as much evidence of this before her deposition. According to DM, Taylor gave them exactly that. They want to impeach Blake’s credibility and show that she is a pathological liar, which let’s be honest is exactly what she is.

I also think it’s interesting that no one believes her. When Scarjo was asked about the lawsuit she burst into laughter. Countless comedians have made fun of her. Heck even Ryan has. The truth is no one would be laughing and joking if they thought her claims were serious. I think it’s pretty clear her claims are widely viewed as frivolous except amongst the most naive of 60 somethings and those with some sort of business relationship with Blake and Ryan.

60 somethings? I think 60-year-olds know what actual sexual harassment is.

Side note- I just watched the pap clip with Salma Hayek. So embarrassing. Blake kept trying to put her arm around Selma as photographers took pics, and Salma kept pulling away... lolz