Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni’s wife looks like Blake. He has a type and I don’t think he’s innocent

That’s crazy talk. What in the “they all look alike” kind of statement is that? JB’s wife is petite and slender with straight hair and slight features. Blake is tall and curvy with big wavy hair and broad features. Besides being white and blonde, these two women look nothing alike. Emily is also Swedish with a thick accent.

[Anonymous]

I mean whatever BF did worked. The coverage about Blake has been much more neutral or frankly bad even from the friendly publications that used to lean toward her. I think the media are wanting to side with Taylor more than they want to side with Blake and Ryan, which is smart.

It’s been a big shift in the last 72 hours. And Blake’s team tried to distract with the total puff piece on ryan’s partner in Wrexham Rob M and his wife, Katelin Olsen. Focus is on what a great friendship they have. The funny thing is Katelin did an interview in September acknowledging that she didn’t know Blake. She said she would like to get to know her better but they live on different coasts so they hadn’t had a chance to meet - but now all of a sudden their besties lol.

Any bets on who Blake will trot out next week? Candace Cameron Burre? Maybe she can find a new career doing Great American Family Christmas movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

There's a good chance MTDs won't be decided until after Labor Day. August at least. Liman has a super full docket and has shown no inclination to speed those along.

There will be more discovery battles between now and then. Likely there will be at least one in person hearing this summer, before MTDs are decided, and that may be a chance to get a better sense of the viability of some of these claims (on both sides) at that.

But I also think there is basically no chance the NYT case proceeds. If it's not dismissed via the MTD, I think it will be greatly narrowed and then likely lost on SJ. Not just because I think the NYT case is strong, but because between the MTD and Liman granting the stay of discovery, there's just no momentum there and it looks like Liman is not looking particularly favorably on Baldoni's arguments. I think the NYT case is the most likely place where Liman's patience with Freedman will run out.

I think people- mostly non lawyers- are making way too much of the stay of discovery. It doesn't mean anything about how Liman will decide the MTD. First amendment/defamation lawyers know there is trouble here based on the facts that have come out. Fair report looks like a very strong defense on its face, so I think Liman wanted more time to assess it before allowing discovery to move forward. If the NYT gets lucky, Liman will narrow a lot of the complaint down, but even then there are a number of ways that fair report likely won't be a defense (the headline for one, as well as the claims that they investigated on their own). And as far as summary judgment- I doubt that as well. On what basis would that be granted? No actual malice as a matter of law? Also doubtful given the facts of the case as we know them now (was it reckless for the NYT to publish a single source/one sided story without allowing the many people on the other side to chime in? That's a factual question for a jury), and I think more damaging info about how much prior background work there was could come out (some are positing that the NYT encouraged Blake to file her complaint so they'd be protected by FR- if that comes out, they are dead). I think this could easily go to a jury if Freedman decides to go there (but he might not if Lively settles).

[Anonymous]

If we're assuming who wants to have sex with whom based on the similarities between a person's spouse and their crush, then it must be noted that Penn Badgley has a very similar vibe to Justin Baldoni. Blake has a habit of hooking up with her coworkers, so it wouldn't surprise me if she was secretly thirsting after him. She truly is like a spurned lover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we're assuming who wants to have sex with whom based on the similarities between a person's spouse and their crush, then it must be noted that Penn Badgley has a very similar vibe to Justin Baldoni. Blake has a habit of hooking up with her coworkers, so it wouldn't surprise me if she was secretly thirsting after him. She truly is like a spurned lover.

No. Not at all similar, really. Not at all. Badgley is a little similar to Reynolds I'd say, but not at all like Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

I am a lawyer actually. Why so angry sounding?

I appreciate they typically never settle but these are weird times. Look at the S C

[Anonymous]

Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

You seem nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

I’m often accused of being team Baldoni, but even I can admit Blake is stunning. I think she’s particularly gorgeous and I love that she’s not a stick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

There's a good chance MTDs won't be decided until after Labor Day. August at least. Liman has a super full docket and has shown no inclination to speed those along.

There will be more discovery battles between now and then. Likely there will be at least one in person hearing this summer, before MTDs are decided, and that may be a chance to get a better sense of the viability of some of these claims (on both sides) at that.

But I also think there is basically no chance the NYT case proceeds. If it's not dismissed via the MTD, I think it will be greatly narrowed and then likely lost on SJ. Not just because I think the NYT case is strong, but because between the MTD and Liman granting the stay of discovery, there's just no momentum there and it looks like Liman is not looking particularly favorably on Baldoni's arguments. I think the NYT case is the most likely place where Liman's patience with Freedman will run out.

I think people- mostly non lawyers- are making way too much of the stay of discovery. It doesn't mean anything about how Liman will decide the MTD. First amendment/defamation lawyers know there is trouble here based on the facts that have come out. Fair report looks like a very strong defense on its face, so I think Liman wanted more time to assess it before allowing discovery to move forward. If the NYT gets lucky, Liman will narrow a lot of the complaint down, but even then there are a number of ways that fair report likely won't be a defense (the headline for one, as well as the claims that they investigated on their own). And as far as summary judgment- I doubt that as well. On what basis would that be granted? No actual malice as a matter of law? Also doubtful given the facts of the case as we know them now (was it reckless for the NYT to publish a single source/one sided story without allowing the many people on the other side to chime in? That's a factual question for a jury), and I think more damaging info about how much prior background work there was could come out (some are positing that the NYT encouraged Blake to file her complaint so they'd be protected by FR- if that comes out, they are dead). I think this could easily go to a jury if Freedman decides to go there (but he might not if Lively settles).

PP here. I'm a lawyer. Issuing a stay of discovery and then sitting on the MTD for months and months is definitely a sign that the judge is leaning towards dismissing it. It would be different if he granted a stay and then ruled on the MTD within a month or so. But there is zero sign the judge intends to rule until mid-summer at the earliest, and likely later (strong likelihood of a hearing involving all parties before he rules and there's nothing on the schedule yet).

Discovery in the NYT case would/will be very involved. Liman is just letting that case sit, no progress, with no end in sight. He would not do that unless the odds were quite good he intended to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

I’m often accused of being team Baldoni, but even I can admit Blake is stunning. I think she’s particularly gorgeous and I love that she’s not a stick

Notice how they didn't say Blake was ugly. She carefully worded it as "naturally beautiful" because we all know Blake went under the knife to achieve her current look. And it was tastefully done. She's beautiful...now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

They are both very attractive women, in different ways.

Arguing otherwise is just spitefulness. Baldoni is also a good looking guy, though he is not my type at all.

Ryan is looking a bit haggard but he's also physically attractive, again in a totally different way to Baldoni (and also not my type! I like Pedro Pascal and Joshua Jackson types).

They are all pretty people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

They are both very attractive women, in different ways.

Arguing otherwise is just spitefulness. Baldoni is also a good looking guy, though he is not my type at all.

Ryan is looking a bit haggard but he's also physically attractive, again in a totally different way to Baldoni (and also not my type! I like Pedro Pascal and Joshua Jackson types).

They are all pretty people.

Agreed, but the PP who said Emily and Blake looked alike and that Baldoni has a type was way off. Men who like petite women don’t all of a sudden go for a tall glass of water. Blake and Justin are eye to eye and he was quite literally afraid to lift her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Baldoni is naturally beautiful, unlike Blake.

They are both very attractive women, in different ways.

Arguing otherwise is just spitefulness. Baldoni is also a good looking guy, though he is not my type at all.

Ryan is looking a bit haggard but he's also physically attractive, again in a totally different way to Baldoni (and also not my type! I like Pedro Pascal and Joshua Jackson types).

They are all pretty people.

Agreed, but the PP who said Emily and Blake looked alike and that Baldoni has a type was way off. Men who like petite women don’t all of a sudden go for a tall glass of water. Blake and Justin are eye to eye and he was quite literally afraid to lift her.

PP and totally agree. I truly don't think they were ever attracted to each other. When you read their texts, things were awkward even from very early on. And they seemed to genuinely dislike each other in that dancing scene. Yes, they are acting for the camera and pretending to be into each other but it's very clear from their body language, especially after cut was called, that they just did not like each other. Not in a steamy love/hate way but in a dysfunctional way where it was probably unpleasant to be around them on set together.