Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

How are Blake supporters spinning things time time? I'm afraid to look at the wasteland of stupidity that is r/BaldoniFiles.

[Anonymous]

*spinning things this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read the email from the intimacy coordinator, saying the scenes that Blake signed off to do and which ones she wanted the IC there for.

Blatantly contradict Blake’s initial allegations.

I really don’t see this going to trial.

Omg please link

It’s all on Reddit. There’s a sub called it ends with lawsuits.

It’s a treasure trove tonight. There is also the text thread between Justin and the wellness guru who he contacted. He absolutely said nothing about weight loss. He said I’m trying to build rapport with a new costar, she is breast-feeding and she has strep throat and I was wondering if there was some probiotics you could recommend.

The woman responded with all this information about how she can make a paste to give the baby probiotics while nursing as well. I’m sure Justin did not want to relay that information to Blake so he said and I’m paraphrasing- could you talk to her? I will pay for it. Again, I’m trying to build rapport on this project.

Absolutely ridiculous to spin this as anything to do with weight loss. I’ve always had a feeling that the woman has a website and has a bunch of services. She’s an LA wellness guru after all. I’m sure she touts probiotics, stress relief, weight loss, all the big ones that celebrities would want, and Blake is either really paranoid, or just decided to spin it to build her fat shaming claims.

[Anonymous]

The retaliation is only actionable if tied to protected activity (SH) and WF makes a compelling argument that the conduct does not meet the conditions of SH, and even if it did, the 9 mos between the alleged SH and the retaliation was too long to assume connection, and even if it weren’t, there were intervening factors that break the causal link (her taking control of the movie etc). If the judge accepts any of these arguments the retaliation claim is done as far as employment law is concerned.

Blake takes a second shot at retaliation under contract law. However Wayfarer argues she never signed her contract, it wasn’t assumed in place because they all moved forward with the movie (which some have argued) and that they were actually operating from and paying her under her offer letter. Apparently nothing that happened was a breach of the offer letter. Should the judge find the unsigned contract is enforceable, the contract terms required lively to give WF notice and 30 days to cure the issue (I think that’s basically a mediation clause). She instead asked for an immediate right to sue and filed the lawsuit 4 days later. So even if the contract was enforceable and even if it were breached by WF, she did not take the steps required by the contract to remedy disputes.

Curious, to see what Blake responds with b/c it seems like a lot of this could get kicked pre trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The alleged sexual harrassment bar scene. https://x.com/justice4bjs/status/1989064320878252401?s=61

I wish someone would put subtitles on this because I can barely understand anything. I do see where he looks surprised, like she took offense at something he didn't mean that way, but others are saying they hear him say "I guess I missed the HR meeting" and I don't. And that was the comment in the written description that made it sound really bad. Without that, it's nothing.

The clip of her with the shoes I think is a nothingburger. It seemed to me like she was saying those boots are considered sexy because of how they are designed, but that design hurts her feet (bone hitting wood... I think she means that in the literal sense, not a double entendre).

So basically both interactions seem normal and uncontroversial to me. Which benefits Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The alleged sexual harrassment bar scene. https://x.com/justice4bjs/status/1989064320878252401?s=61

On Reddit, there’s a video of her with the boots that she wanted to wear telling crew members how sexy they are because the bone hits the wood or something weird. They look completely unimpressed and like they are just trying to do their job and she’s talking about how sexy her boots are.

Honestly, if she wasn’t trying to ruin this man’s life, I would feel sorry for her. she just seems really lost and…. I don’t know the right word. Desperate? I wonder if she’s neurodivergent. There is just something off about some of these interactions.

In the old Blake thread, someone speculated she might have autism, which sounds ridiculous on its face and I know you shouldn't speculate about people like that, but I thought it was a really interesting theory. I mean, I don't think she is, but again, something interest to mull over.

In that video, she sounds very child-like. I think she was really babied by her family. I listened to some podcast with a guy who knew Blake's family, and he talked about how weird she was and how she was a huge daddy's girl, like a little bit more than normal. I don't mean that in a creepy way, just like, it sounds like it maybe stunted her growth in a way.

I don't know about autistic, but her personality certainly is...something. Regardless of how they came to light, all those interviews of her are just terrible. Deliberately misinterpreting harmless questions, becoming aggressive, and twisting people's harmless comments and questions left and right. Her sexual and gross out humor is also weird, she definitely acts in a way many would not consider "normal" and she has come across as a totally unreliable narrator and a bully basically since she has been on the public eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation is only actionable if tied to protected activity (SH) and WF makes a compelling argument that the conduct does not meet the conditions of SH, and even if it did, the 9 mos between the alleged SH and the retaliation was too long to assume connection, and even if it weren’t, there were intervening factors that break the causal link (her taking control of the movie etc). If the judge accepts any of these arguments the retaliation claim is done as far as employment law is concerned.

Blake takes a second shot at retaliation under contract law. However Wayfarer argues she never signed her contract, it wasn’t assumed in place because they all moved forward with the movie (which some have argued) and that they were actually operating from and paying her under her offer letter. Apparently nothing that happened was a breach of the offer letter. Should the judge find the unsigned contract is enforceable, the contract terms required lively to give WF notice and 30 days to cure the issue (I think that’s basically a mediation clause). She instead asked for an immediate right to sue and filed the lawsuit 4 days later. So even if the contract was enforceable and even if it were breached by WF, she did not take the steps required by the contract to remedy disputes.

Curious, to see what Blake responds with b/c it seems like a lot of this could get kicked pre trial.

I have been highly critical of Wayfarer but the memo of law was very strong (have not even begun looking at the exhibits other than the tidbits on reddit). This is like their dismissed complaint in the sense that it contextualizes a lot of interactions that were made to seem very damning in her complaint, but these are couched in solid legal arguments, not PR and hyperbole. Where the original complaint was all "she didn't even read the book!!11" this one is arguing that she had knowledge of the type of movie she signed up for and was very astute in how she negotiated that, and when they started getting into how she wanted to move filming to NJ (which I hadn't realized!), that wasn't just to portray her as a diva, that was actually leading up to an analysis of whether she was an independent contractor vs an employee and the implications of that... very well done. It's a completely different style of lawyering now.

Some of the cases they cited (haven't read them so we'll see how Lively distinguishes them) were also super interesting. There was one about a FEHA claim from female writers on Friends being dismissed where the male writers were being extremely raunchy and talking about their sex lives, and the court ruled that was not SH in the context of writing for an adult sitcom. Another case said commenting on a co-worker's breast implants would be offensive in a regular workplace, but not on the Real Housewives show.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think Blake is mentally ill or special needs, she just is an incredibly privileged person with no self awareness, likely a result of her upbringing and very early Hollywood success.

[Anonymous]

The video clips are interesting because they show just how many people were constantly on set. It would be impossible for him to be harassing her without the crew members noticing (incidents alleged to have happened in trailers different story). Which makes the fact that only he lists crew members in his disclosure, while she lists Hollywood friends, very germane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation is only actionable if tied to protected activity (SH) and WF makes a compelling argument that the conduct does not meet the conditions of SH, and even if it did, the 9 mos between the alleged SH and the retaliation was too long to assume connection, and even if it weren’t, there were intervening factors that break the causal link (her taking control of the movie etc). If the judge accepts any of these arguments the retaliation claim is done as far as employment law is concerned.

Blake takes a second shot at retaliation under contract law. However Wayfarer argues she never signed her contract, it wasn’t assumed in place because they all moved forward with the movie (which some have argued) and that they were actually operating from and paying her under her offer letter. Apparently nothing that happened was a breach of the offer letter. Should the judge find the unsigned contract is enforceable, the contract terms required lively to give WF notice and 30 days to cure the issue (I think that’s basically a mediation clause). She instead asked for an immediate right to sue and filed the lawsuit 4 days later. So even if the contract was enforceable and even if it were breached by WF, she did not take the steps required by the contract to remedy disputes.

Curious, to see what Blake responds with b/c it seems like a lot of this could get kicked pre trial.

I have been highly critical of Wayfarer but the memo of law was very strong (have not even begun looking at the exhibits other than the tidbits on reddit). This is like their dismissed complaint in the sense that it contextualizes a lot of interactions that were made to seem very damning in her complaint, but these are couched in solid legal arguments, not PR and hyperbole. Where the original complaint was all "she didn't even read the book!!11" this one is arguing that she had knowledge of the type of movie she signed up for and was very astute in how she negotiated that, and when they started getting into how she wanted to move filming to NJ (which I hadn't realized!), that wasn't just to portray her as a diva, that was actually leading up to an analysis of whether she was an independent contractor vs an employee and the implications of that... very well done. It's a completely different style of lawyering now.

Some of the cases they cited (haven't read them so we'll see how Lively distinguishes them) were also super interesting. There was one about a FEHA claim from female writers on Friends being dismissed where the male writers were being extremely raunchy and talking about their sex lives, and the court ruled that was not SH in the context of writing for an adult sitcom. Another case said commenting on a co-worker's breast implants would be offensive in a regular workplace, but not on the Real Housewives show.

I think the last argument has been made by the WF supporters here many times. What might be a sexually charged comment in an accounting firm is inherently different in a context where one is expected to simulate sex with a co-star. Not surprised there is case law that recognizes this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The video clips are interesting because they show just how many people were constantly on set. It would be impossible for him to be harassing her without the crew members noticing (incidents alleged to have happened in trailers different story). Which makes the fact that only he lists crew members in his disclosure, while she lists Hollywood friends, very germane.

How Blake supporters will respond to this: "Oh, it's possible to harass anyone at any time. Women get catcalled in public all the time."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video clips are interesting because they show just how many people were constantly on set. It would be impossible for him to be harassing her without the crew members noticing (incidents alleged to have happened in trailers different story). Which makes the fact that only he lists crew members in his disclosure, while she lists Hollywood friends, very germane.

How Blake supporters will respond to this: "Oh, it's possible to harass anyone at any time. Women get catcalled in public all the time."

I mean, that is possible. I don't think it's what happened here from the videos we've seen, but I would never say she couldn't have been harassed because there were a lot of people around. That's why I always maintained I wanted to hear more from witnesses who were there, like Lively's assistants. Or videos like this, which are looking great for Baldoni so far. Interested to see how her lawyers will oppose this both legally and factually because the MSJ is strong.

[Anonymous]

It’s crazy that Blake would bring what appears to be a really frivolous lawsuit. She may be paying her lawyers, but we the taxpayers are paying Liman and co and this such an abuse of public resources. If this goes to trial in NY, there’s no way Mamdani New Yorkers are giving her a dime. She should be fined for wasting public resources.

[Anonymous]

So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I don't know if this is a good, unified theory as you say, but my 17 yr old DD pointed out to me that in pretty much every movie she has made, BL has got it on with a co-star. She thinks that either this happened on this movie, or BL made a pass at him that was rejected, or she is just dealing with some deep seated need for affirmation with him that has backfired in her relationship with RR. Then this lawsuit is her public apology / get out clause with RR to keep their marriage on track and untainted (in his eyes).