Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When do you guys think Blake and Ryan will divorce?

It will be a bad look for him to divorce her with such little kids. I predict once this blows over a little bit and their youngest starts school, in 3 years or so. Their oldest will be a teen by then.

They will “amicably separate” and remain “the best of friends and coparents” with their number one priority being their children and so on and so forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

I think part of this is them saying she was never an employee of Wayfarer. If she wasn't an employee, she might not be able to sue them under employment law, and also Sarowitz would not be implicated as an employer for harassment or retaliation that occurred at his company. To back this up they are pointing to the unsigned contract and also some negotiations regarding moving shooting to NJ.

However, on the other side, we see multiple instances of Sarowitz quite clearly operating as an employer, using his position as producer to try and strongarm Lively. This is one of the reasons his comments in his deposition may be relevant -- he's saying he could be on set whenever he wanted because it was his movie, his set, his money. That supports the idea of him being her employer, which would make him liable.

Sarowitz is trying to play it both ways here. He really should have been advised not to talk like that in the depo. He probably was, but is a hothead who doesn't listen to lawyers. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.

Wallace isn't in the case because they couldn't connect him to NY, so the court had no jurisdiction over him. Lively can't sue him in TX because of anti-SLAPP laws. Wallace was not dismissed because he has nothing to do with the case, it's a jurisdiction issue.

Sarowitz is directly implicated in part due to his comments to third parties about going after Lively and Reynolds. He is also on many of the texts and emails discussing what to do about Lively, including messages with the PR team.

Have any of the Wayfarer parties filed for indemnification from the IEWU LLC? I know Abel is seeking indemnification from Jonesworks. I know there are issues with Wayfarer's insurance refusing to pay for this litigation due to failure to disclose the issues with Lively when they arise, and also potentially an under insurance issue. I think due to that, Sarowitz is trying n the hook here. We'll see regarding Abel. TAG was hired directly by Wayfarer so if they want indemnification it would be through Wayfarer. Abel and Nathan may very well get out of the Lively case, but I think Sarowitz, Baldoni, and Heath are in it until the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Justin knows how powerful Blake and Ryan are. If he were such a sex pest, why would a 20-point list stop him? The complaints magically went away when Blake got what she wanted.

He's also strange for a "sex pest." The berating in Ryan's house not stop him, but then the 20 point list did? That's weird, man!

Yes the complaints "magically" went away when Blake got what she wanted, which included an agreement to stop touching people without their consent, employ an intimacy consultant on more scenes, and to stop discussing sexual history, their wives' birth experiences, and Baldoni's conversations with Blake's dead father on the set.

Blake also didn't accuse Baldoni of being a "sex pest." She accused him of harassment, which has a legal definition. But keep throwing up straw men -- that's weird, man!

Intimacy coordinator was involved from the beginning. Baldoni's conversations about her dad have nothing to do with sexual harassment. etc. etc.

Blake wasn't sexually harassed, man! Get it together!

The IC was not on set for any of the scenes Blake filmed before the 17 point list. Afterwards, an IC (not sure if it was the same one) was on set for all scenes Blake filmed with Baldoni. This is a major change in policy.

The dead dad stuff isn't SH but was an employment-related complaint. The behavior ceased only after Blake complained and threatened not to return to set unless they signed a document saying they would not engage in the behavior, including talking about her dead dad, again. This fact pattern benefits Blake because it shows that Baldoni's behavior was inappropriate and her complaint during filming was valid. Which helps support a claim that she was retaliated against for her complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

I think part of this is them saying she was never an employee of Wayfarer. If she wasn't an employee, she might not be able to sue them under employment law, and also Sarowitz would not be implicated as an employer for harassment or retaliation that occurred at his company. To back this up they are pointing to the unsigned contract and also some negotiations regarding moving shooting to NJ.

However, on the other side, we see multiple instances of Sarowitz quite clearly operating as an employer, using his position as producer to try and strongarm Lively. This is one of the reasons his comments in his deposition may be relevant -- he's saying he could be on set whenever he wanted because it was his movie, his set, his money. That supports the idea of him being her employer, which would make him liable.

Sarowitz is trying to play it both ways here. He really should have been advised not to talk like that in the depo. He probably was, but is a hothead who doesn't listen to lawyers. Good luck with that.

None of this would create an employment contract where none existed. You must not be a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Justin knows how powerful Blake and Ryan are. If he were such a sex pest, why would a 20-point list stop him? The complaints magically went away when Blake got what she wanted.

He's also strange for a "sex pest." The berating in Ryan's house not stop him, but then the 20 point list did? That's weird, man!

Yes the complaints "magically" went away when Blake got what she wanted, which included an agreement to stop touching people without their consent, employ an intimacy consultant on more scenes, and to stop discussing sexual history, their wives' birth experiences, and Baldoni's conversations with Blake's dead father on the set.

Blake also didn't accuse Baldoni of being a "sex pest." She accused him of harassment, which has a legal definition. But keep throwing up straw men -- that's weird, man!

Intimacy coordinator was involved from the beginning. Baldoni's conversations about her dad have nothing to do with sexual harassment. etc. etc.

Blake wasn't sexually harassed, man! Get it together!

The IC was not on set for any of the scenes Blake filmed before the 17 point list. Afterwards, an IC (not sure if it was the same one) was on set for all scenes Blake filmed with Baldoni. This is a major change in policy.

The dead dad stuff isn't SH but was an employment-related complaint. The behavior ceased only after Blake complained and threatened not to return to set unless they signed a document saying they would not engage in the behavior, including talking about her dead dad, again. This fact pattern benefits Blake because it shows that Baldoni's behavior was inappropriate and her complaint during filming was valid. Which helps support a claim that she was retaliated against for her complaint.

But in the latest dump, there is a letter from the intimacy coordinator, stating this scenes that Blake agreed to have an intimate coordinator present. These consisted of scenes where there would be simulated sex. So the scenes that she complained about without having an intimacy coordinator, she had agreed prior that there didn’t need to be one. That complicates her allegations a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Justin knows how powerful Blake and Ryan are. If he were such a sex pest, why would a 20-point list stop him? The complaints magically went away when Blake got what she wanted.

He's also strange for a "sex pest." The berating in Ryan's house not stop him, but then the 20 point list did? That's weird, man!

Yes the complaints "magically" went away when Blake got what she wanted, which included an agreement to stop touching people without their consent, employ an intimacy consultant on more scenes, and to stop discussing sexual history, their wives' birth experiences, and Baldoni's conversations with Blake's dead father on the set.

Blake also didn't accuse Baldoni of being a "sex pest." She accused him of harassment, which has a legal definition. But keep throwing up straw men -- that's weird, man!

Intimacy coordinator was involved from the beginning. Baldoni's conversations about her dad have nothing to do with sexual harassment. etc. etc.

Blake wasn't sexually harassed, man! Get it together!

The IC was not on set for any of the scenes Blake filmed before the 17 point list. Afterwards, an IC (not sure if it was the same one) was on set for all scenes Blake filmed with Baldoni. This is a major change in policy.

The dead dad stuff isn't SH but was an employment-related complaint. The behavior ceased only after Blake complained and threatened not to return to set unless they signed a document saying they would not engage in the behavior, including talking about her dead dad, again. This fact pattern benefits Blake because it shows that Baldoni's behavior was inappropriate and her complaint during filming was valid. Which helps support a claim that she was retaliated against for her complaint.

The dead dad stuff is not actionable as sexual harassment, or indeed, harassment at all. It merely shows how weak her claims are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.

Wallace isn't in the case because they couldn't connect him to NY, so the court had no jurisdiction over him. Lively can't sue him in TX because of anti-SLAPP laws. Wallace was not dismissed because he has nothing to do with the case, it's a jurisdiction issue.

Sarowitz is directly implicated in part due to his comments to third parties about going after Lively and Reynolds. He is also on many of the texts and emails discussing what to do about Lively, including messages with the PR team.

Have any of the Wayfarer parties filed for indemnification from the IEWU LLC? I know Abel is seeking indemnification from Jonesworks. I know there are issues with Wayfarer's insurance refusing to pay for this litigation due to failure to disclose the issues with Lively when they arise, and also potentially an under insurance issue. I think due to that, Sarowitz is trying n the hook here. We'll see regarding Abel. TAG was hired directly by Wayfarer so if they want indemnification it would be through Wayfarer. Abel and Nathan may very well get out of the Lively case, but I think Sarowitz, Baldoni, and Heath are in it until the end.

I’m aware the Wallace case was kicked for jurisdiction, just using as an example that you have to sue the appropriate parties. In Wallace’s case it wasn’t appropriate to sue him (at least not in ny) due to jurisdiction. But honestly even if he were still in the case, I would be making the same point that the only party liable here is it ends with us movie. The rest are thrown in for discovery (easier to get from parties than non parties) and because that’s just what lawyers do, pad their claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.

So, funnily enough, Blake had the same group pleading issue Justin did, but the reason why her claims went forward is because WF decided not to dismiss it. Would you say that's accurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.

So, funnily enough, Blake had the same group pleading issue Justin did, but the reason why her claims went forward is because WF decided not to dismiss it. Would you say that's accurate?

PP yes agree. WF claimed they chose not to do an MTD for strategic reasons, but they totally could’ve gotten some of this kicked sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.

So, funnily enough, Blake had the same group pleading issue Justin did, but the reason why her claims went forward is because WF decided not to dismiss it. Would you say that's accurate?

PP yes agree. WF claimed they chose not to do an MTD for strategic reasons, but they totally could’ve gotten some of this kicked sooner.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.

So, funnily enough, Blake had the same group pleading issue Justin did, but the reason why her claims went forward is because WF decided not to dismiss it. Would you say that's accurate?

PP yes agree. WF claimed they chose not to do an MTD for strategic reasons, but they totally could’ve gotten some of this kicked sooner.

It was a good strategy, they felt Liman would allow her to replead. I think he would have.

[Anonymous]

I know Wayfarer gets a lot of heat for their legal strategies and mess ups, but I actually am beginning to think they were playing the long game. Blake really has played every hand that she has at this point and now things are starting to unravel.

It was clear from the start that Blake didn’t intend to even do a lawsuit much less get this far so Wayfare just seemed to let them keep digging a deeper hole. Now we have months and months of bad press for Blake and Ryan, people coming forward feeling emboldened like they never have before, all this super messy Vanzan legal trail that is really not sitting well with people, and now it seems like this case might even hold up because she never signed her contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know Wayfarer gets a lot of heat for their legal strategies and mess ups, but I actually am beginning to think they were playing the long game. Blake really has played every hand that she has at this point and now things are starting to unravel.

It was clear from the start that Blake didn’t intend to even do a lawsuit much less get this far so Wayfare just seemed to let them keep digging a deeper hole. Now we have months and months of bad press for Blake and Ryan, people coming forward feeling emboldened like they never have before, all this super messy Vanzan legal trail that is really not sitting well with people, and now it seems like this case might even hold up because she never signed her contract.

Agree. Whatever you think morally, her case is legally very weak and her lawyers knew that. But she will likely appeal if she loses. Gottlieb is drake’s lawyer too in that ridiculous defamation case. It was dismissed and drake is now appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When do you guys think Blake and Ryan will divorce?

1 to 2 years after the lawsuit ends, regardless of the outcome.