Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's compare:

Lively parties negotiate in good faith for 3 months over ROG responses with Baldoni parties, still don't get reasonable responses and get more and more delays, and finally submit their MTC to the judge, whereupon Baldoni supporters say further negotiation was needed.

Baldoni parties held a meet and confer with Lively parties on Wednesday, May 28 to discuss Lively's failure to provide the name of medical providers; two days later on Friday, Lively parties told Baldoni Lively was dropping her emotional distress claims and thereupon ensued the drama between dismissing with and without prejudice. Freedman emailed Gottlieb at 11:30 pm Saturday and 1am Sunday to resolve, and Gottlieb emailed back at 9:30 pm Sunday to say without prejudice and if you have problems let's resolve during our 4:30pm Monday meet and confer. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all, and immediately after which he filed his own Motion to Compel, which Baldoni supporters thought was pretty reasonable. (Freedman's motion was denied.)

Seems like folks are applying a double standard here, but ymmv.

All of these requests went out around the same time, which means Lively’s team had been dragging their feet on the medical records for three months before it all finally came to a head. Blake’s lawyers just write in a much more whiney woe is me kind of way because they’ve taken on the personality of their client but they haven’t turned over much either. BF said as much in replying to a past MTC.

Nah, Freedman was the only one turning ROG responses in late, if you will recall (as per prior letter motions filed complaining about it). Remember when Freedman asked for an extension on their ROG and RFP responses so they would be due in mid-May instead of April 14th, and the judge said no way, you haven't shown good cause? (See 4/10/25 order.) And then remember when, in late April, the Lively parties filed multiple MTC's because Freedman's team responded to the ROGs with absolute non-answers, like "In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time" but were willing to meet and confer, lol? Benson filed those Responses (late) on 4/18 and within 2 weeks after further unsuccessful meet and confer, Gottlieb filed their MTC on them by the end of the month. There is no evidence in the record that Lively's ROG or RFP responses have been late or so deliriously non-responsive. And if Lively's team answered the RFP for medical records documents with a flat no as Summer's letter indicates, why on earth did it take Freedman's team more than an entire month longer to complain about it, in late May instead of late April like Gottlieb managed? Seems like that's mismanagement on Freedman.

I can see how Freedman's delay tactics of "we'll give you a little bit more but no where near what you're entitled to" might tend to make negotiations seem possible and therefore could lead lawyers to keep negotiating until, like here, Gottlieb's team just gives up. But if Gottlieb gave a flat no to the medical records as indicated, then Freedman's team sat on that info for a month before forcing a quick weekend turnaround and ignored the subject altogether on the M&C call, seems like Freedman is operating in bad faith and for the media as per usual.

That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything.

But that was before the parties agreed on the ESI protocol. At the time, Lively's side was trying to get Freedman to agree to the protocol because they wanted all parties to begin producing documents and were also trying to get Freedman to agree to a proposed date of all parties first production, which he also would not due. While Lively had not begun producing docs before the ESI protocol was agreed to, and while I don't know for sure because I can't see the correspondence, the record strongly suggests to me that the Lively parties began producing around the date of the first production date they had teed up and tried to get Freedman to agree to (was it end of April? Early May? I can't remember). That's because they are building a record to complain about later given Freedman's lack of production, and will be comparing their own production against Baldoni's etc.

As you said, you don’t know. The fact is that from the beginning the lively parties have been more aggressive in filing motions, including frivolous ones like their motions for sanctions against everyone except Baldoni for daring to sue them. That doesn’t mean they’ve been more cooperative.

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from the clues in the party email communications as someone who deals with discovery disputes all the time. Lively wouldn't have been trying to get Freedman to agree to a production date if they weren't going to be ready to produce themselves; they would have let Freedman draw it out. Gottlieb etc. have been acting like they're carefully building a record that they can reference when they complain about it later. That's my prediction here -- that at some point in early July or so we'll see another MTC complaining that Freedman hasn't provided the requisite documents responsive to the requests as required by the CMO.

I'm not sure Freedman's team of a few lawyers is really keeping up with Lively's on getting the ROG/RFP responses in on time, having them actually be responsive, reviewing Lively's responses to same, and actually providing the agreed upon materials. Lively's team probably has dozens of associates and partners working on this between all the firms, but Freedman seems to just have four or five; I'm sure Freedman has far fewer lawyers (and they only have the Freedman firm and Meister Seelig) and yet they have just as much if not more to do. I suspect they're not keeping up.

To me the purpose of the sanctions motions are to emphasize the paucity of evidence on the claims at issue, emphasize Freedman hasn't amended the complaint as promised, and so build the record that dismissal of the claims at issue in those motions should be granted with prejudice. We'll see if it pans out or not, but it does give the judge a full record to work with.

Oh fascinating. /s

Is this litigator mom? Or Yale Law mom? Or just little old Arlington mom? Or maybe you’re fact checker to multiple publications mom?

When is your contract up?

Last time y’all tried to figure out who was who over here we lured out your “they’re tracking our IP addresses!” lady. I’d worry about what other oddballs you’ve got over there, personally.

Recap of this week:

1. Lively drops her emotional distress claims. Lively can’t claim those monetary damages, but also Freedman doesn’t get to use her doctors to say she has various mental health issues as happened with Amber Heard. Freedman’s motion to compel these records is denied.

2. Two additional amicus briefs supporting Lively are filed including one on the constitutionality of 47.1 and another on DARVO tactics used by abusers (consistent with filing harassing defamation claims).

3. Vituscka files declaration clarifying Sloane didn’t say Baldoni sexually assaulted or harassed Lively, potentially killing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Also agrees to fork over 6 months of communications with Freedman. It’s like a Reverse Swift, without the struck pleadings!

4. Jed Wallace asks again if he can please just take his ball and go home. 🙏 Decision pending.

5. Liman says Jones gets to keep her tech investigation team’s communications privileged and his footnote makes clear that he has seen Freedman’s argument that the subpoena creates a crime fraud exemption and rejects it here.

6. Baldoni finally gets an amicus! Oh wait -

That was sarcastic. We know who’s over here.

And you were the one who set up the ‘Baldoni fans are nuts and think we’re tracking them!’ by pretending to be a pro JB poster who was crazy. Sometimes you like to be neutral too ‘I’ve never been a fan of BL but…’ sometimes you like to be a pro JB over the top misogynist, so your partner can then chime in’ ‘how can you support someone who has supporters like this??!’

By now, the regulars on here all can you tell the Lively posters style, so just stop.

Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and you're like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.

Not really. It’s clear there are pro BL shills on here who take on different personas from wash mom to dc mom to whatever point they’re trying to prove at that moment. Someone challenging their legal theories, they’re suddenly a lawyer or a litigator or even a Yale grad. Someone challenging their take on the NYT... they’re suddenly a news journalist or seasoned fact checker. Someone challenges the cred of the amicus SH victim lawyer … and they’re suddenly a seasoned dv advocate.

Yet interestingly, the writing and posting cadence and style is often very similar.

So yes, it’s entirely possible they occasionally pose as pro JB posters, especially ones they can make look bad. It tracks.

This! It’s so transparent!

DP and I also agree. This post was apparently so triggering that it generated two pages worth of weird denials.

Is that what those two pages were? I thought much of them were jokes at your expense for being so paranoid and frankly silly in insisting people would get paid to post on DCUM. You have out-paranoid-ed “you’re tracking my IP addresses through my comments” lady, which is a feat. Congratulations!🍾

Where did you come out in the feedback from the “Turtles all the way down” post in Off Topic DCUM? Was it distressing to you how so many completely normal people were familiar with this phrase? Will there be a follow up thread to check whether normal people understand the “hold my beer” reference? Please provide updates.

[Anonymous]

Oof. That's got to hurt, Baldoni supporters. Thoughts and preyers.

[Anonymous]

Judge Liman dismisses almost all of Baldoni/Wayfarer's claims with prejudice, including all the defamation claims including against the NYT, which is out. Ignores everything in Exhibit A as improperly pled, but denies motion to strike it. Denies attorneys fees for now but Lively can refile. Wayfarer can file a second amended complaint for breach of implied contract and tortious interference only. I think that's all they can replead, but I may have missed something.

Judge Liman's summary (his language):

The Amended Complaint focuses broadly on two types of claims. First, the Wayfarer Parties claim that Lively, assisted by Reynolds and Sloane, stole the film from Baldoni and Wayfarer, threatening to refuse to promote the film and attack Baldoni and Wayfarer in the press if the Wayfarer Parties did not agree to grant her, rather than Wayfarer, control over and credit for the film. Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 124, 130, 144, 146, 152–157, 192–193, 250–255. The Wayfarer Parties seek damages for this conduct based on a legal theory that Lively, Reynolds, and Sloane
committed civil extortion. Id. ¶¶ 316–323. Second, the Wayfarer Parties claim that Lively, Sloane, Reynolds, and the Times spread a false narrative that Baldoni committed sexual misconduct towards Lively and the Wayfarer Parties then engaged in a smear campaign to ruin her reputation. Id. ¶ 17; see id. ¶¶ 8, 162, 193, 272–273, 275, 370. The Wayfarer Parties claim that by doing so, Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and the Times committed the torts of defamation and false light. Although these two types of claims are the focus of the Amended Complaint, the
Wayfarer Parties also bring claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage, and promissory fraud. See id. ¶¶ 340–391. The Wayfarer Parties cannot recover for Lively’s alleged actions to steal creative control of the film from Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties. Regardless of the propriety of these actions, they do not constitute civil extortion under California law. California courts have recognized a claim for civil extortion in situations where a plaintiff gives a defendant money or property under threat and seeks to have it returned. See Fuhrman v. Cal. Satellite Sys., 231 Cal. Rptr. 113, 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). However, the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively’s threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions. Additionally, the Wayfarer Parties have not shown that some of Lively’s allegedly extortionate acts damaged them.

The Wayfarer Parties also cannot recover on their defamation claims. The Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged. The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane, or the Times would have seriously
doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law.

The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. However, the Wayfarer Parties have leave to amend their claims for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.296.0.pdf

You guys still loving Bryan Freedman over there? No thoughts about maybe how he shouldn't have missed that repleading deadline? Seems like a bad decision now, in the rear view mirror.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's compare:

Lively parties negotiate in good faith for 3 months over ROG responses with Baldoni parties, still don't get reasonable responses and get more and more delays, and finally submit their MTC to the judge, whereupon Baldoni supporters say further negotiation was needed.

Baldoni parties held a meet and confer with Lively parties on Wednesday, May 28 to discuss Lively's failure to provide the name of medical providers; two days later on Friday, Lively parties told Baldoni Lively was dropping her emotional distress claims and thereupon ensued the drama between dismissing with and without prejudice. Freedman emailed Gottlieb at 11:30 pm Saturday and 1am Sunday to resolve, and Gottlieb emailed back at 9:30 pm Sunday to say without prejudice and if you have problems let's resolve during our 4:30pm Monday meet and confer. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all, and immediately after which he filed his own Motion to Compel, which Baldoni supporters thought was pretty reasonable. (Freedman's motion was denied.)

Seems like folks are applying a double standard here, but ymmv.

All of these requests went out around the same time, which means Lively’s team had been dragging their feet on the medical records for three months before it all finally came to a head. Blake’s lawyers just write in a much more whiney woe is me kind of way because they’ve taken on the personality of their client but they haven’t turned over much either. BF said as much in replying to a past MTC.

Nah, Freedman was the only one turning ROG responses in late, if you will recall (as per prior letter motions filed complaining about it). Remember when Freedman asked for an extension on their ROG and RFP responses so they would be due in mid-May instead of April 14th, and the judge said no way, you haven't shown good cause? (See 4/10/25 order.) And then remember when, in late April, the Lively parties filed multiple MTC's because Freedman's team responded to the ROGs with absolute non-answers, like "In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time" but were willing to meet and confer, lol? Benson filed those Responses (late) on 4/18 and within 2 weeks after further unsuccessful meet and confer, Gottlieb filed their MTC on them by the end of the month. There is no evidence in the record that Lively's ROG or RFP responses have been late or so deliriously non-responsive. And if Lively's team answered the RFP for medical records documents with a flat no as Summer's letter indicates, why on earth did it take Freedman's team more than an entire month longer to complain about it, in late May instead of late April like Gottlieb managed? Seems like that's mismanagement on Freedman.

I can see how Freedman's delay tactics of "we'll give you a little bit more but no where near what you're entitled to" might tend to make negotiations seem possible and therefore could lead lawyers to keep negotiating until, like here, Gottlieb's team just gives up. But if Gottlieb gave a flat no to the medical records as indicated, then Freedman's team sat on that info for a month before forcing a quick weekend turnaround and ignored the subject altogether on the M&C call, seems like Freedman is operating in bad faith and for the media as per usual.

That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything.

But that was before the parties agreed on the ESI protocol. At the time, Lively's side was trying to get Freedman to agree to the protocol because they wanted all parties to begin producing documents and were also trying to get Freedman to agree to a proposed date of all parties first production, which he also would not due. While Lively had not begun producing docs before the ESI protocol was agreed to, and while I don't know for sure because I can't see the correspondence, the record strongly suggests to me that the Lively parties began producing around the date of the first production date they had teed up and tried to get Freedman to agree to (was it end of April? Early May? I can't remember). That's because they are building a record to complain about later given Freedman's lack of production, and will be comparing their own production against Baldoni's etc.

As you said, you don’t know. The fact is that from the beginning the lively parties have been more aggressive in filing motions, including frivolous ones like their motions for sanctions against everyone except Baldoni for daring to sue them. That doesn’t mean they’ve been more cooperative.

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from the clues in the party email communications as someone who deals with discovery disputes all the time. Lively wouldn't have been trying to get Freedman to agree to a production date if they weren't going to be ready to produce themselves; they would have let Freedman draw it out. Gottlieb etc. have been acting like they're carefully building a record that they can reference when they complain about it later. That's my prediction here -- that at some point in early July or so we'll see another MTC complaining that Freedman hasn't provided the requisite documents responsive to the requests as required by the CMO.

I'm not sure Freedman's team of a few lawyers is really keeping up with Lively's on getting the ROG/RFP responses in on time, having them actually be responsive, reviewing Lively's responses to same, and actually providing the agreed upon materials. Lively's team probably has dozens of associates and partners working on this between all the firms, but Freedman seems to just have four or five; I'm sure Freedman has far fewer lawyers (and they only have the Freedman firm and Meister Seelig) and yet they have just as much if not more to do. I suspect they're not keeping up.

To me the purpose of the sanctions motions are to emphasize the paucity of evidence on the claims at issue, emphasize Freedman hasn't amended the complaint as promised, and so build the record that dismissal of the claims at issue in those motions should be granted with prejudice. We'll see if it pans out or not, but it does give the judge a full record to work with.

Oh fascinating. /s

Is this litigator mom? Or Yale Law mom? Or just little old Arlington mom? Or maybe you’re fact checker to multiple publications mom?

When is your contract up?

Last time y’all tried to figure out who was who over here we lured out your “they’re tracking our IP addresses!” lady. I’d worry about what other oddballs you’ve got over there, personally.

Recap of this week:

1. Lively drops her emotional distress claims. Lively can’t claim those monetary damages, but also Freedman doesn’t get to use her doctors to say she has various mental health issues as happened with Amber Heard. Freedman’s motion to compel these records is denied.

2. Two additional amicus briefs supporting Lively are filed including one on the constitutionality of 47.1 and another on DARVO tactics used by abusers (consistent with filing harassing defamation claims).

3. Vituscka files declaration clarifying Sloane didn’t say Baldoni sexually assaulted or harassed Lively, potentially killing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Also agrees to fork over 6 months of communications with Freedman. It’s like a Reverse Swift, without the struck pleadings!

4. Jed Wallace asks again if he can please just take his ball and go home. 🙏 Decision pending.

5. Liman says Jones gets to keep her tech investigation team’s communications privileged and his footnote makes clear that he has seen Freedman’s argument that the subpoena creates a crime fraud exemption and rejects it here.

6. Baldoni finally gets an amicus! Oh wait -

That was sarcastic. We know who’s over here.

And you were the one who set up the ‘Baldoni fans are nuts and think we’re tracking them!’ by pretending to be a pro JB poster who was crazy. Sometimes you like to be neutral too ‘I’ve never been a fan of BL but…’ sometimes you like to be a pro JB over the top misogynist, so your partner can then chime in’ ‘how can you support someone who has supporters like this??!’

By now, the regulars on here all can you tell the Lively posters style, so just stop.

Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and you're like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.

Not really. It’s clear there are pro BL shills on here who take on different personas from wash mom to dc mom to whatever point they’re trying to prove at that moment. Someone challenging their legal theories, they’re suddenly a lawyer or a litigator or even a Yale grad. Someone challenging their take on the NYT... they’re suddenly a news journalist or seasoned fact checker. Someone challenges the cred of the amicus SH victim lawyer … and they’re suddenly a seasoned dv advocate.

Yet interestingly, the writing and posting cadence and style is often very similar.

So yes, it’s entirely possible they occasionally pose as pro JB posters, especially ones they can make look bad. It tracks.

This! It’s so transparent!

DP and I also agree. This post was apparently so triggering that it generated two pages worth of weird denials.

Is that what those two pages were? I thought much of them were jokes at your expense for being so paranoid and frankly silly in insisting people would get paid to post on DCUM. You have out-paranoid-ed “you’re tracking my IP addresses through my comments” lady, which is a feat. Congratulations!🍾

Where did you come out in the feedback from the “Turtles all the way down” post in Off Topic DCUM? Was it distressing to you how so many completely normal people were familiar with this phrase? Will there be a follow up thread to check whether normal people understand the “hold my beer” reference? Please provide updates.

None of those posts were mine. Perhaps you need to learn the meaning of different poster.

[Anonymous]

With prejudice?!

[Anonymous]

Ouch!

The Wayfarer Parties have leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint by June 23, 2025, amending only the allegations relevant to the
claims of tortious interference with contract and breach of implied covenant

[Anonymous]

I guess Freedman did well to bring up Swift when he did cause without extortion she's irrelevant now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman dismisses almost all of Baldoni/Wayfarer's claims with prejudice, including all the defamation claims including against the NYT, which is out. Ignores everything in Exhibit A as improperly pled, but denies motion to strike it. Denies attorneys fees for now but Lively can refile. Wayfarer can file a second amended complaint for breach of implied contract and tortious interference only. I think that's all they can replead, but I may have missed something.

Judge Liman's summary (his language):

The Amended Complaint focuses broadly on two types of claims. First, the Wayfarer Parties claim that Lively, assisted by Reynolds and Sloane, stole the film from Baldoni and Wayfarer, threatening to refuse to promote the film and attack Baldoni and Wayfarer in the press if the Wayfarer Parties did not agree to grant her, rather than Wayfarer, control over and credit for the film. Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 124, 130, 144, 146, 152–157, 192–193, 250–255. The Wayfarer Parties seek damages for this conduct based on a legal theory that Lively, Reynolds, and Sloane
committed civil extortion. Id. ¶¶ 316–323. Second, the Wayfarer Parties claim that Lively, Sloane, Reynolds, and the Times spread a false narrative that Baldoni committed sexual misconduct towards Lively and the Wayfarer Parties then engaged in a smear campaign to ruin her reputation. Id. ¶ 17; see id. ¶¶ 8, 162, 193, 272–273, 275, 370. The Wayfarer Parties claim that by doing so, Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and the Times committed the torts of defamation and false light. Although these two types of claims are the focus of the Amended Complaint, the
Wayfarer Parties also bring claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage, and promissory fraud. See id. ¶¶ 340–391. The Wayfarer Parties cannot recover for Lively’s alleged actions to steal creative control of the film from Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties. Regardless of the propriety of these actions, they do not constitute civil extortion under California law. California courts have recognized a claim for civil extortion in situations where a plaintiff gives a defendant money or property under threat and seeks to have it returned. See Fuhrman v. Cal. Satellite Sys., 231 Cal. Rptr. 113, 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). However, the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively’s threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions. Additionally, the Wayfarer Parties have not shown that some of Lively’s allegedly extortionate acts damaged them.

The Wayfarer Parties also cannot recover on their defamation claims. The Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged. The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane, or the Times would have seriously
doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law.

The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. However, the Wayfarer Parties have leave to amend their claims for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.296.0.pdf

You guys still loving Bryan Freedman over there? No thoughts about maybe how he shouldn't have missed that repleading deadline? Seems like a bad decision now, in the rear view mirror.

Also, I am feeling very justified in seeing this language from Liman supporting dismissing most of these claims with prejudice -- this is what I have been saying all along, and why I felt the motions for sanctions were also instructive on the issue even if they might not ultimately succeed in getting money -- they emphasize the futility of amendment, which Liman absolutely agreed with:

"The Court will not grant leave to amend the majority of the Wayfarer Parties’ claims because amendment would be futile. The dismissal of the claims does not rest on technical pleading defects, and the Wayfarer Parties have not made 'a showing that the complaint’s defects can be cured.' Porat v. Lincoln Towers Cmty. Ass’n, 464 F.3d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 2006). The Wayfarer Parties do not identify any particular factual allegations that could be added to support the defamation or civil extortion claims, nor is it plausible that any allegations not yet mentioned would change the basic substance of Lively’s threats, the conclusion that the CRD complaint was privileged, or the conclusion that relevant statements were made without actual malice. In addition to their 224-page Amended Complaint, the Wayfarer Parties have already submitted to this Court an additional 168-page Exhibit with additional details relevant to their claims. Dkt. No. 50-1. Although the Exhibit is not properly considered for purposes of the motion to dismiss, the allegations within it still would not allow the Wayfarer Parties to state a claim."



Also, what the Lively supporter who worked as a fact checker said about NYT not waiting the additional 90 minutes for more information from Wayfarer is exactly what Liman says in his opinion: "The Wayfarer Parties’ theory is apparently that by sending their comment, they accepted an offer from the Times that they would have until noon the next day to comment. Dkt. No. 127 at 23. But this makes little sense, because once the Times had the Wayfarer Parties’ comment it would not need to wait until noon for an additional comment. Dkt. No. 107-8. A request for information before a certain time is not a contract."

So much of this stuff that you gave Lively supporters such a hard time about turns out to be exactly the way Judge Liman ruled here. You have been wrong, wrong, wrong this whole time. Goodbye, $400M.

(Cue Baldoni supporters saying that this means Lively should settle RIGHT NOW!)

[Anonymous]

Liman gave them just two weeks to file an amended complaint! I guess since there's only two remaining claims, he figured that should be enough time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman gave them just two weeks to file an amended complaint! I guess since there's only two remaining claims, he figured that should be enough time.

I forgot, what is the basis for the breach of contract? Lively ultimately performed in the film and promoted it.

[Anonymous]

STAY IN HAWAII, JUSTIN!!!

[Anonymous]

Can't wait to see the reddit meltdowns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman dismisses almost all of Baldoni/Wayfarer's claims with prejudice, including all the defamation claims including against the NYT, which is out. Ignores everything in Exhibit A as improperly pled, but denies motion to strike it. Denies attorneys fees for now but Lively can refile. Wayfarer can file a second amended complaint for breach of implied contract and tortious interference only. I think that's all they can replead, but I may have missed something.

Judge Liman's summary (his language):

The Amended Complaint focuses broadly on two types of claims. First, the Wayfarer Parties claim that Lively, assisted by Reynolds and Sloane, stole the film from Baldoni and Wayfarer, threatening to refuse to promote the film and attack Baldoni and Wayfarer in the press if the Wayfarer Parties did not agree to grant her, rather than Wayfarer, control over and credit for the film. Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 124, 130, 144, 146, 152–157, 192–193, 250–255. The Wayfarer Parties seek damages for this conduct based on a legal theory that Lively, Reynolds, and Sloane
committed civil extortion. Id. ¶¶ 316–323. Second, the Wayfarer Parties claim that Lively, Sloane, Reynolds, and the Times spread a false narrative that Baldoni committed sexual misconduct towards Lively and the Wayfarer Parties then engaged in a smear campaign to ruin her reputation. Id. ¶ 17; see id. ¶¶ 8, 162, 193, 272–273, 275, 370. The Wayfarer Parties claim that by doing so, Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and the Times committed the torts of defamation and false light. Although these two types of claims are the focus of the Amended Complaint, the
Wayfarer Parties also bring claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage, and promissory fraud. See id. ¶¶ 340–391. The Wayfarer Parties cannot recover for Lively’s alleged actions to steal creative control of the film from Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties. Regardless of the propriety of these actions, they do not constitute civil extortion under California law. California courts have recognized a claim for civil extortion in situations where a plaintiff gives a defendant money or property under threat and seeks to have it returned. See Fuhrman v. Cal. Satellite Sys., 231 Cal. Rptr. 113, 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). However, the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively’s threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions. Additionally, the Wayfarer Parties have not shown that some of Lively’s allegedly extortionate acts damaged them.

The Wayfarer Parties also cannot recover on their defamation claims. The Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged. The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane, or the Times would have seriously
doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law.

The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. However, the Wayfarer Parties have leave to amend their claims for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.296.0.pdf

You guys still loving Bryan Freedman over there? No thoughts about maybe how he shouldn't have missed that repleading deadline? Seems like a bad decision now, in the rear view mirror.

Honestly not sure it would have mattered with this judge. Curious to see if they file for interlocutory review on the defamation claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:STAY IN HAWAII, JUSTIN!!!

I love how the JB supporters are considered rabid, but everytime Lively has a win, the pettiness comes out from the BL side.

[Anonymous]

Justin could lose his case to Blake Lively and people would still hate her. #facts