Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have settled when it was clear Justin had receipts and a loyal billionaire who was going to help him fight these false claims AND the masses and viral internet sleuthes were fully and organically behind Justin. That was in…January? These lawyers and grifters around Blake and Ryan are just going to bleed them for a fortune each month until they wise up and realize they’re being scammed. Settlement is inevitable. Zesty Ryan will be “consciously uncoupling” compulsive liar plantation Barbie by Christmas.

And the lawyers dont particularly care about this but the PR people have been saying this for months. RR and BL apparently think they are too smart for PR (which is HILARIOUS since its been so atrocious for months) and PR will ultimately decide their future more than a suit will. I dont know they'll divorce right now, but I loved the Molly McPherson earlier days podcast on this because it was sort of sympathetic to Blake, but raked Ryan over the coals as a somewhat insider.

Ryan is a catty psychopath. He will absolutely divorce her over this. Even though he’s obviously complicit in the scheme, he will fault the bimbo beard for it all and all of the career and Hollywood stature fallout. He won’t be able to stand her. I would honestly bet they’re already at that point privately.

Exhibit No. 4,685: This mean-spirited weirdo who has been posting this insult salad since the beginning. Keeping it classy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

I am a Lively supporter and my initial participation in this thread was devoid of insults and general upset over the stuff Baldoni supporters said about Lively, and then started saying about posters who supported Lively.

So for several hundred pages it was mostly a one-way insult thread. Maybe that was better? It didn’t feel better.

I don’t know what you are talking about. There are posts on this very page about Baldoni that are offensive. Blake supporters have been throwing around terms like misogyny here since day one.

Right, I said it used to be a one way insult thread. It isn’t anymore obvs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

I am a Lively supporter and my initial participation in this thread was devoid of insults and general upset over the stuff Baldoni supporters said about Lively, and then started saying about posters who supported Lively.

So for several hundred pages it was mostly a one-way insult thread. Maybe that was better? It didn’t feel better.

I don’t know what you are talking about. There are posts on this very page about Baldoni that are offensive. Blake supporters have been throwing around terms like misogyny here since day one.

Right, I said it used to be a one way insult thread. It isn’t anymore obvs.

It’s been both ways since day one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

That’s 10 percent of what the defendants are seeking. Each party is incurring several million in legal costs alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

A decade ago Hulk Hogan (funded by Peter Thiel?) cracked Gawker for $140 million for a freaking blog post. Received $31 million cash.

"In March 2016, the jury found Gawker Media liable and awarded Bollea $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Three months after the verdict, Gawker filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and put itself up for sale. Gawker Media's assets, not including the namesake website, were subsequently sold to Univision Communications. On November 2, 2016, Gawker reached a $31 million settlement with Bollea."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

I'm not a "Baldoni supporter" in any way. I'm just an impartial supporter of anyone victimized by ruthlessly evil scam artists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

Seriously. It's hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have settled when it was clear Justin had receipts and a loyal billionaire who was going to help him fight these false claims AND the masses and viral internet sleuthes were fully and organically behind Justin. That was in…January? These lawyers and grifters around Blake and Ryan are just going to bleed them for a fortune each month until they wise up and realize they’re being scammed. Settlement is inevitable. Zesty Ryan will be “consciously uncoupling” compulsive liar plantation Barbie by Christmas.

And the lawyers dont particularly care about this but the PR people have been saying this for months. RR and BL apparently think they are too smart for PR (which is HILARIOUS since its been so atrocious for months) and PR will ultimately decide their future more than a suit will. I dont know they'll divorce right now, but I loved the Molly McPherson earlier days podcast on this because it was sort of sympathetic to Blake, but raked Ryan over the coals as a somewhat insider.

Ryan is a catty psychopath. He will absolutely divorce her over this. Even though he’s obviously complicit in the scheme, he will fault the bimbo beard for it all and all of the career and Hollywood stature fallout. He won’t be able to stand her. I would honestly bet they’re already at that point privately.

Exhibit No. 4,685: This mean-spirited weirdo who has been posting this insult salad since the beginning. Keeping it classy.

Some snark on a message board read by a dozen dweebs is so beyond the pale compared to cooking up a viral NYT-aided hoax to permanently destroy a man's life, family, career, and reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

Maybe there are no records because there was no emotional distress. Ryan and Blake were flying high, confident in their scheme, drawing up scenes to make fun on whiny beeyotch Baldoni for things like wanting an IC on set, and generally on top of the world.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

In my opinion, this is strategic and possibly a risk. I don’t think they want to give these records to Freedman. I also suspect they don’t want to offer a tool that could be used to make Lively look mentally unstable. Look what Baldoni supporters say already. Look at how Amber Heard was portrayed.

The judge hasn’t really been willing to impose consequences on Freedman for leaking information to the press before a filing is made or leaking info in other “untraceable” ways.

The view that the records don’t exist so there has been no emotional damage doesn’t account for the fact that Lively could also hire an expert now to testify to her emotional damage, and a good expert would have a field day here.

I agree with this. Amber Heard got dismantled on the stand because they successfully used her mental health issues against her. It was very frustrating as an advocate for DV survivors because of course someone who has been in an abusive relationship with a person who clearly has addiction issues is going to have mental health issues. But they used her mental vulnerabilities and emotionality to make her look unstable and manipulative, which convinced the jury she was lying despite quite a bit of evidence.

I would not want to hand my opponent details of my mental health state for them to use against me on the stand.

When you file a claim for emotional distress, those things were going to come out in discovery and be used against you regardless. Those aren't things you can hide from the prosecuter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

Not in settlement. It could help in negotiations, but it isn’t a requirement.

[Anonymous]

We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

Not in settlement. It could help in negotiations, but it isn’t a requirement.

Fair enough, but I think they'll want to see some financials rather than just agreeing because it's only 10% of the original number that hasn't been substantiated.