Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Props to WF for giving us one early MSJ, you know the rest will all roll in at 11:59 tonight.

I'm really wondering what issues the parties will submit. I have a feeling neither will try on the SH claims - a jury can clearly find either way on the facts we know. Although I suppose they may want to lay out evidence for PR.

Maybe WF will shock us and just rely on the MJOP. Stranger things have happened. But I hope they all submit MSJs with lots of unredacted exhibits. The text messages the other day where WF was drafting DMs to Colleen Hoover were hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Props to WF for giving us one early MSJ, you know the rest will all roll in at 11:59 tonight.

I'm really wondering what issues the parties will submit. I have a feeling neither will try on the SH claims - a jury can clearly find either way on the facts we know. Although I suppose they may want to lay out evidence for PR.

Maybe WF will shock us and just rely on the MJOP. Stranger things have happened. But I hope they all submit MSJs with lots of unredacted exhibits. The text messages the other day where WF was drafting DMs to Colleen Hoover were hilarious.

I enjoyed those texts too. Would love more stuff like that. It also appears Baldoni was lying on social media last summer about his medical issues. This is so embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shocking development in the litigation yesterday with Jen Abel filing a conditional motion seeking identification from Joneswork. Can’t wait to see the what else gets filed over the next few weeks.

“Shocking development” — lol, are you okay? This was pretty much to be expected and imho is not likely to succeed at the SJ stage since facts will be in dispute as to the extent that Abel had gone rogue and was not acting under Jones’s instruction or with Jones’s knowledge.

There is not a single post on any of the ridiculously threads about this litigation that discuss this possibility. So yes, shocking. And very smart because it creates tension in the Lively/Jonesworks alliance.

Seriously? Indemnification is literally one of the many affirmative defenses listed in Abel’s answer responding to Jones’s complaint. While we may not have discussed this specifically, isn’t it because it is a kind of obvious defense that Abel could try to prove? I don’t think she’ll win on SJ but it makes sense for her to tee this up. The idea that this is some kind of 4D chess is not a take I was ready for lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Props to WF for giving us one early MSJ, you know the rest will all roll in at 11:59 tonight.

I'm really wondering what issues the parties will submit. I have a feeling neither will try on the SH claims - a jury can clearly find either way on the facts we know. Although I suppose they may want to lay out evidence for PR.

Maybe WF will shock us and just rely on the MJOP. Stranger things have happened. But I hope they all submit MSJs with lots of unredacted exhibits. The text messages the other day where WF was drafting DMs to Colleen Hoover were hilarious.

I enjoyed those texts too. Would love more stuff like that. It also appears Baldoni was lying on social media last summer about his medical issues. This is so embarrassing.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Jed's lawsuit against Lively in Texas was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. She just keeps winning!

[Anonymous]

Jed will prevail.

[Anonymous]

Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Most of it is boosting, where someone sends a link, says to boost it, and someone flags to Jed. There's a couple that describe narratives they asked the press to write, and one text where Katie Case says "the comments are us lol." Then they mix it in with more benign stuff like Justin boosting things that make him look good, to pad it out. It's not a huge bombshell but it's not nothing and it's pretty clear they weren't flagging Jed to monitor stuff they already found. But enough to convince a jury, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

It’s pretty innocuous, she really has nothing.

[Anonymous]

Apparently Blake ADDED kissing scenes in the movie, when it wasn't call for in the script. OMG.

[Anonymous]

Haven’t had a chance to review the motions yet , but the video of Blake siting on the floor, explaining to no one in particular what exactly makes her hideous sequined boots so “sexy” is pure gold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Most of it is boosting, where someone sends a link, says to boost it, and someone flags to Jed. There's a couple that describe narratives they asked the press to write, and one text where Katie Case says "the comments are us lol." Then they mix it in with more benign stuff like Justin boosting things that make him look good, to pad it out. It's not a huge bombshell but it's not nothing and it's pretty clear they weren't flagging Jed to monitor stuff they already found. But enough to convince a jury, I don't know.

I only skimmed but this seems like a pretty accurate summary. TBH, including all the stuff that is clearly just Justin and his team boosting positive stories about him or trying to sell a narrative that all was well on set (or just part of the creative process) makes it feel like it's no big deal. I wish they'd strip all that stuff out and just list the places where they have evidence of Abel, TAG, or Jed boosting negative stories about Blake, claiming credit for negative comments about her, etc. If it was just this, it would be easier to evaluate if it feels like enough to convince a jury.

I do think they are really hurting for all the Signal chat stuff here. It's tough when they have texts where someone identifies something online and says "we'll flag to Jed" and then... we don't know what happened. To me this is a big unanswered question. I don't buy what Jed is saying about "just monitoring" -- it doesn't make sense based on how his services were described internally by TAG or Wayfarer, and doesn't make sense with the text info we have about his work. But that doesn't mean he was doing what Lively was alleging.

It's frustrating to have that gap and not be able to assess for myself if whatever Jed did was okay or not. I also would love to know what he did just as a consumer of information online -- I feel like it might provide some insight that could help me be a smarter consumer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Most of it is boosting, where someone sends a link, says to boost it, and someone flags to Jed. There's a couple that describe narratives they asked the press to write, and one text where Katie Case says "the comments are us lol." Then they mix it in with more benign stuff like Justin boosting things that make him look good, to pad it out. It's not a huge bombshell but it's not nothing and it's pretty clear they weren't flagging Jed to monitor stuff they already found. But enough to convince a jury, I don't know.

I only skimmed but this seems like a pretty accurate summary. TBH, including all the stuff that is clearly just Justin and his team boosting positive stories about him or trying to sell a narrative that all was well on set (or just part of the creative process) makes it feel like it's no big deal. I wish they'd strip all that stuff out and just list the places where they have evidence of Abel, TAG, or Jed boosting negative stories about Blake, claiming credit for negative comments about her, etc. If it was just this, it would be easier to evaluate if it feels like enough to convince a jury.

I do think they are really hurting for all the Signal chat stuff here. It's tough when they have texts where someone identifies something online and says "we'll flag to Jed" and then... we don't know what happened. To me this is a big unanswered question. I don't buy what Jed is saying about "just monitoring" -- it doesn't make sense based on how his services were described internally by TAG or Wayfarer, and doesn't make sense with the text info we have about his work. But that doesn't mean he was doing what Lively was alleging.

It's frustrating to have that gap and not be able to assess for myself if whatever Jed did was okay or not. I also would love to know what he did just as a consumer of information online -- I feel like it might provide some insight that could help me be a smarter consumer.

There is exactly one claim of a negative story about Blake being boosted prior to the complaint being filed. As you said, most of it is boosting positive stories about Justin or neutral stories. Really weak sauce.

[Anonymous]

WF filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of sexual harassment. It’s a huge filing so I am linking to a Reddit post which summarizes the filings, albeit in a manner very favorable to WF. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/8xrF8jWhzn