Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Good point. Especially interested to hear from the "litigators" who repeatedly said I was wrong that the extortion claims had zero basis in the complaint, or that the judge was likely to agree the statements in both the CRD and in the NYT article quoting or referring to the CRD, were covered by litigation and fair report privilege.

You were so confident. Where did you go?

🔥 🔥 🔥

I'm very confused by this. From the start, people (including JB supporters) said Justin's claims against the NYT were a huge longshot. I even asked one of the people here who thought it *might* survive to give me some odds, and they said maybe it had a 20% chance. When it comes to JB's claims against Blake Lively, I don't think anyone said they were going to survive for sure. most JB-supporters have been talking about the lack of Blake's credibility.

I think many of the JB posters are fine but some are very aggressive. There was definitely one that kept saying those who thought NYT would be dismissed only knew defamation law 101 and couldn't possibly know this area of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if I missed, but could someone actually explain what this means? Is it game over case closed, Justin has no recourse? Is it likely Blake will now settle or is it more likely now it will go to court?

In the past, these have been troll requests.

No, the troll request have been can you please explain everything that’s happened in the last year of this case.

I’m legitimately asking just the news of the last two hours. Should probably take two paragraphs to explain it. Not asking for the full rundown, I have been keeping up with this case, but just unclear what this means.

For example, people last week were saying, Blake has dismissed the case. That turned out to not be true, she dismissed one element. This is getting similar confusing headlines. I just want someone to clarify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone TL;DR the status of this case? Baldoni’s defamation case against Blake and NYT are both dismissed. Lively pulled her emotional distress claims. What’s left?

Happily.

Lively v. Baldoni et al: This case is still pending and scheduled to go to trial next March. They are in the middle of the first stage of discovery (focused on document production, have not gotten to depositions yet). Yes Lively is dropping two claims that specifically allege intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, her core claims are all still standing, including sexual harassment and retaliation, which are her core claims. This case is unaffected by today's decisions.

Baldoni et al v. Lively/Reynolds/Sloane/NYT: This case has been dismissed in full, however some claims have been dismissed with prejudice (meaning they cannot be refiled) and some have been dismissed without prejudice (meaning they could be refiled if the plaintiffs fix some of the problems).

Defamation and extortion claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Liman said the only actually defamatory statements alleged were within the CRD complaint, which is privileged. And there was simply no extortion alleged at all -- Baldoni et al failed to identify a single thing of value they were extorted out of of. The movie made them a ton of money. They still own the movie. The end, we're never hearing about this again.

There are two contract-related claims that have been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These are the tortious interference claim and the breach of implied covenant. These were dismissed because the complaint failed to articulate a legal basis for these claims. In theory, they can file a second amended complaint outlining these claims. I think it's unlikely they will fill the tortious interference claim because I don't think there's an underlying contract breach (because I don't think William Morris violated its contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer when they dropped them as a client -- most agent contracts give agents broad leeway in dropping clients). The breach of implied covenant is similarly problematic but might be more viable, I'd have to look at it.

If Baldoni does not refile any claims, the case will proceed with Lively as the sole plaintiff, and Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, Jed Wallace, Jen Abel, and Melissa Nathan as defendants. The case would just be about whether or not sexual harassment occurred on the set, and whether Lively was retaliated against for raising SH concerns.

The New York Times, Leslie Sloane, and Ryan Reynolds are no longer parties to the lawsuit at all (and RR is the only one who could be dragged back in if they refile those contract claims based on his statements to WM reps about Baldoni's behavior).

For the person who wanted a recap, see above. Nothing important has happened since this was posted a few hours ago.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

of course it would be hard to show. It would be extremely hard to show and even if Baldoni puts 10 journalism professors on the record, there would still be a mountain of contradictory evidence. I’m not even sure he beats MTD on actual malice (although I have not combed through the latest.)

It really really won’t be that hard and this is to a jury. They aren’t super precise. And the NYT will likely have written parameters and there will likely be drafts, emails and other materials they are forced to turn over with questions or concerns set out. These are writers and media people- they tend to communicate and that can work against them in these types of cases. See the Fox Old Dominion case where texts sunk them to close to a billion dollar settlement. Fox also claimed that they were protected, they were going to fight it all the way, they were just reporting on a matter of public concern, blah blah.

this case is NOTHING like the Fox Dominion case. there’s zero evidence even alleged that is similar. I don’t know how much background you have in journalism or 1A but you really are off base. That of course doesn’t mean a jury could make a crazy decision but I’m not sure the verdict would stand and I’m not even sure this passes MTD.

Rolling my eyes hard at your repeated reference to ‘1A’. Sorry, no insider uses that expression which is showing me you don’t have nearly the knowledge base in this area of the law you think you do. OF COURSE this case isn’t exactly like the Fox case- in some ways, the Fox case was *better* for Fox- at the beginning at least bc voter fraud and the veracity of the election was clearly a significant matter of public interest for them to report on, including what other people were claiming about a matter of great import. Yet Old Dominion survived a MTD. Can’t really say that about a petty onset scrap between a B list actress and an unknown director. Why the heck was the Times reporting on this crap in the first place? It’s off brand, other than making it into a bigger metoo story.

But my point was that discovery can sink cases for media Defendants bc there tends to be a decent amount of written materials and chatter and internal debate on stories like this, and it typically doesn’t help defendants, especially when used by a crafty Ps attorney, which Bryan Freedman is showing himself to be.

So let’s play this out, and let’s say the jury decides for Ps- a ‘crazy decision’ as you said (which I don’t agree with necessarily but whatever). You think the NYT wants to appeal based on NYT v Sullivan and see what happens there? Have you not noticed the recent strange media settlements? Think about it. It’s a very weird time for the media, and because of some of these factors, including how skilled Bryan Freedman seems to be and how much PR and coverage there is, my belief is that this case has a decent chance.

True the first amendment has nothing to do with defamation lol.

Obviously the legal and media landscape are changing quickly but you keep on acting like there is likely to be ANYTHING similar to what Fox did - and I do not believe it has been alleged and nor will it come out in discovery.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

true, Floyd Abrams never discussed the First Amendment 🤡

anyway I never said I was a defamation defense attorney? I don’t believe you are either. If you are I invite you to write a long post showing how Baldoni will show the same types of facts as alleged in the Dominion cases. “maybe he will dig up a red flag that the jury maybe will construe against the NYT” is not really persuasive.

Sigh. You’re hopeless in digging in when you don’t know, and then trying to twist my words. Floyd Abrams hasn’t been on the defense scene in any real way for years. I get that you took a law class and know his name. Besides, I was making fun of your short hand, 1A. It’s just not an acronym that’s used.

true, only a member of the very small “defense scene” can competently analyze the case; and using an acronym you dislike shows that my opinion is worthless. Mmm hmm.

still waiting for your actual analysis of the dominion v Baldoni complaints. I don’t think Baldoni has even alleged enough to get to discovery.

Defense BAR. Not defense ‘scene’. And yes, your use of strange acronyms and reference to non practicing attorneys leads me to believe you don’t know this area of the law very well. Which is fine. I don’t know the SH side of things that well. The difference is that most people admit what they don’t know. You are amusing in that you act like you are an expert when you’re clearly not.

I think B will get discovery, but sure, let’s wait and see.

This turned out to be not a thing: Argument that claims against NYT will survive MTD and go on to discovery. Lots of insults from the Baldoni supporter and claims that person argued with (neither of these are me) is hopeless and mocking them for not having the correct "knowledge base" when they were properly predicting case would not survive MTD while pedigreed insider was saying it would go to jury. Okay.

Dp. Whoa. You are literally unhinged.

The pp said ‘I think’ blah blah and let’s wait and see. And this is what you’re reading back 100 pages to trot out and gloat over. Are you the same poster who ranted over the protective order issue? Be honest. Because that was totally NUTS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But surely what Gottlieb really regrets now is that he has provided Freedman a roadmap for his remaining two claims instead of refraining to file any MTD at all. So I guess he sent them to the grocery store for milk, or the hardware store for nails, or something like that, and surely has deep regrets because although Gottlieb was able to obtain nearly everything on his list, now Freedman knows what’s on his list, or something like that.

’
Is this sarcastic? I think this was a good day for Lively but I think overall this case has been horrible for her, and I think a trial would be a big mistake. I think the Lively people on here will snark, but I objectively think this would be a great opportunity for her to push for a settlement and try to end this mess that she shouldn’t have started. And no, I’m not saying for 400 million. Maybe that each agree to withdraw claims and release a joint statement and donate a sum to some NFP. Unfortunately I wonder if her team is giving her smart guidance though

Someone said, in response to my comment, WHERE did anyone here say Lively should settle now for basically nothing even though her remaining claims are worth more, and here is one of several comments where Baldoni supporters take it upon themselves to advise Lively to settle now ASAP, with this one saying she should basically settle for no money and donate money together to non-profits.

I wrote that post and frankly you seem unwell. Your posts are rabidly immature. And nowhere did I say ‘settle ASAP!!! But I didn’t realize Livelys case was about money for her. I thought it was about women and her reputation. Personally I think she had some fairly significant liability she could be facing the way she handled this bc I think it’s pretty clear she wasn’t SH under any legal theory. I think today was a win for her and if I were her lawyers I would personally advise her to try to shut this mess down and take this victory lap. But I realize you don’t agree bc you don’t seem to be able to be objective at all

DP. I am a lawyer and I agree with this. I think today was a win for her but I don’t think overall this case has benefited her at all, and I think her chances of winning in front of a jury are slim to none. I think she should take a victory lap and try to make this go away while she has great leverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone TL;DR the status of this case? Baldoni’s defamation case against Blake and NYT are both dismissed. Lively pulled her emotional distress claims. What’s left?

Happily.

Lively v. Baldoni et al: This case is still pending and scheduled to go to trial next March. They are in the middle of the first stage of discovery (focused on document production, have not gotten to depositions yet). Yes Lively is dropping two claims that specifically allege intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, her core claims are all still standing, including sexual harassment and retaliation, which are her core claims. This case is unaffected by today's decisions.

Baldoni et al v. Lively/Reynolds/Sloane/NYT: This case has been dismissed in full, however some claims have been dismissed with prejudice (meaning they cannot be refiled) and some have been dismissed without prejudice (meaning they could be refiled if the plaintiffs fix some of the problems).

Defamation and extortion claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Liman said the only actually defamatory statements alleged were within the CRD complaint, which is privileged. And there was simply no extortion alleged at all -- Baldoni et al failed to identify a single thing of value they were extorted out of of. The movie made them a ton of money. They still own the movie. The end, we're never hearing about this again.

There are two contract-related claims that have been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These are the tortious interference claim and the breach of implied covenant. These were dismissed because the complaint failed to articulate a legal basis for these claims. In theory, they can file a second amended complaint outlining these claims. I think it's unlikely they will fill the tortious interference claim because I don't think there's an underlying contract breach (because I don't think William Morris violated its contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer when they dropped them as a client -- most agent contracts give agents broad leeway in dropping clients). The breach of implied covenant is similarly problematic but might be more viable, I'd have to look at it.

If Baldoni does not refile any claims, the case will proceed with Lively as the sole plaintiff, and Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, Jed Wallace, Jen Abel, and Melissa Nathan as defendants. The case would just be about whether or not sexual harassment occurred on the set, and whether Lively was retaliated against for raising SH concerns.

The New York Times, Leslie Sloane, and Ryan Reynolds are no longer parties to the lawsuit at all (and RR is the only one who could be dragged back in if they refile those contract claims based on his statements to WM reps about Baldoni's behavior).

For the person who wanted a recap, see above. Nothing important has happened since this was posted a few hours ago.

Oh so this is nothing about Blake’s substantive claims, which I think most people see as pretty flimsy. It’s a victory for her, but not as huge as I was thinking from all the posting on here!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone TL;DR the status of this case? Baldoni’s defamation case against Blake and NYT are both dismissed. Lively pulled her emotional distress claims. What’s left?

Happily.

Lively v. Baldoni et al: This case is still pending and scheduled to go to trial next March. They are in the middle of the first stage of discovery (focused on document production, have not gotten to depositions yet). Yes Lively is dropping two claims that specifically allege intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, her core claims are all still standing, including sexual harassment and retaliation, which are her core claims. This case is unaffected by today's decisions.

Baldoni et al v. Lively/Reynolds/Sloane/NYT: This case has been dismissed in full, however some claims have been dismissed with prejudice (meaning they cannot be refiled) and some have been dismissed without prejudice (meaning they could be refiled if the plaintiffs fix some of the problems).

Defamation and extortion claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Liman said the only actually defamatory statements alleged were within the CRD complaint, which is privileged. And there was simply no extortion alleged at all -- Baldoni et al failed to identify a single thing of value they were extorted out of of. The movie made them a ton of money. They still own the movie. The end, we're never hearing about this again.

There are two contract-related claims that have been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These are the tortious interference claim and the breach of implied covenant. These were dismissed because the complaint failed to articulate a legal basis for these claims. In theory, they can file a second amended complaint outlining these claims. I think it's unlikely they will fill the tortious interference claim because I don't think there's an underlying contract breach (because I don't think William Morris violated its contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer when they dropped them as a client -- most agent contracts give agents broad leeway in dropping clients). The breach of implied covenant is similarly problematic but might be more viable, I'd have to look at it.

If Baldoni does not refile any claims, the case will proceed with Lively as the sole plaintiff, and Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, Jed Wallace, Jen Abel, and Melissa Nathan as defendants. The case would just be about whether or not sexual harassment occurred on the set, and whether Lively was retaliated against for raising SH concerns.

The New York Times, Leslie Sloane, and Ryan Reynolds are no longer parties to the lawsuit at all (and RR is the only one who could be dragged back in if they refile those contract claims based on his statements to WM reps about Baldoni's behavior).

For the person who wanted a recap, see above. Nothing important has happened since this was posted a few hours ago.

Oh so this is nothing about Blake’s substantive claims, which I think most people see as pretty flimsy. It’s a victory for her, but not as huge as I was thinking from all the posting on here!!

Exactly right, this was only about his counterclaims, nearly all of which are harder to prove, or even allege, than sexual harassment or retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Omg the psycho BL supporter is losing its mind right in front of us. Fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But surely what Gottlieb really regrets now is that he has provided Freedman a roadmap for his remaining two claims instead of refraining to file any MTD at all. So I guess he sent them to the grocery store for milk, or the hardware store for nails, or something like that, and surely has deep regrets because although Gottlieb was able to obtain nearly everything on his list, now Freedman knows what’s on his list, or something like that.

’
Is this sarcastic? I think this was a good day for Lively but I think overall this case has been horrible for her, and I think a trial would be a big mistake. I think the Lively people on here will snark, but I objectively think this would be a great opportunity for her to push for a settlement and try to end this mess that she shouldn’t have started. And no, I’m not saying for 400 million. Maybe that each agree to withdraw claims and release a joint statement and donate a sum to some NFP. Unfortunately I wonder if her team is giving her smart guidance though

Someone said, in response to my comment, WHERE did anyone here say Lively should settle now for basically nothing even though her remaining claims are worth more, and here is one of several comments where Baldoni supporters take it upon themselves to advise Lively to settle now ASAP, with this one saying she should basically settle for no money and donate money together to non-profits.

I wrote that post and frankly you seem unwell. Your posts are rabidly immature. And nowhere did I say ‘settle ASAP!!! But I didn’t realize Livelys case was about money for her. I thought it was about women and her reputation. Personally I think she had some fairly significant liability she could be facing the way she handled this bc I think it’s pretty clear she wasn’t SH under any legal theory. I think today was a win for her and if I were her lawyers I would personally advise her to try to shut this mess down and take this victory lap. But I realize you don’t agree bc you don’t seem to be able to be objective at all

DP. I am a lawyer and I agree with this. I think today was a win for her but I don’t think overall this case has benefited her at all, and I think her chances of winning in front of a jury are slim to none. I think she should take a victory lap and try to make this go away while she has great leverage.

I totally agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone TL;DR the status of this case? Baldoni’s defamation case against Blake and NYT are both dismissed. Lively pulled her emotional distress claims. What’s left?

Happily.

Lively v. Baldoni et al: This case is still pending and scheduled to go to trial next March. They are in the middle of the first stage of discovery (focused on document production, have not gotten to depositions yet). Yes Lively is dropping two claims that specifically allege intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, her core claims are all still standing, including sexual harassment and retaliation, which are her core claims. This case is unaffected by today's decisions.

Baldoni et al v. Lively/Reynolds/Sloane/NYT: This case has been dismissed in full, however some claims have been dismissed with prejudice (meaning they cannot be refiled) and some have been dismissed without prejudice (meaning they could be refiled if the plaintiffs fix some of the problems).

Defamation and extortion claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Liman said the only actually defamatory statements alleged were within the CRD complaint, which is privileged. And there was simply no extortion alleged at all -- Baldoni et al failed to identify a single thing of value they were extorted out of of. The movie made them a ton of money. They still own the movie. The end, we're never hearing about this again.

There are two contract-related claims that have been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These are the tortious interference claim and the breach of implied covenant. These were dismissed because the complaint failed to articulate a legal basis for these claims. In theory, they can file a second amended complaint outlining these claims. I think it's unlikely they will fill the tortious interference claim because I don't think there's an underlying contract breach (because I don't think William Morris violated its contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer when they dropped them as a client -- most agent contracts give agents broad leeway in dropping clients). The breach of implied covenant is similarly problematic but might be more viable, I'd have to look at it.

If Baldoni does not refile any claims, the case will proceed with Lively as the sole plaintiff, and Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, Jed Wallace, Jen Abel, and Melissa Nathan as defendants. The case would just be about whether or not sexual harassment occurred on the set, and whether Lively was retaliated against for raising SH concerns.

The New York Times, Leslie Sloane, and Ryan Reynolds are no longer parties to the lawsuit at all (and RR is the only one who could be dragged back in if they refile those contract claims based on his statements to WM reps about Baldoni's behavior).

For the person who wanted a recap, see above. Nothing important has happened since this was posted a few hours ago.

Oh so this is nothing about Blake’s substantive claims, which I think most people see as pretty flimsy. It’s a victory for her, but not as huge as I was thinking from all the posting on here!!

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But surely what Gottlieb really regrets now is that he has provided Freedman a roadmap for his remaining two claims instead of refraining to file any MTD at all. So I guess he sent them to the grocery store for milk, or the hardware store for nails, or something like that, and surely has deep regrets because although Gottlieb was able to obtain nearly everything on his list, now Freedman knows what’s on his list, or something like that.

’
Is this sarcastic? I think this was a good day for Lively but I think overall this case has been horrible for her, and I think a trial would be a big mistake. I think the Lively people on here will snark, but I objectively think this would be a great opportunity for her to push for a settlement and try to end this mess that she shouldn’t have started. And no, I’m not saying for 400 million. Maybe that each agree to withdraw claims and release a joint statement and donate a sum to some NFP. Unfortunately I wonder if her team is giving her smart guidance though

Someone said, in response to my comment, WHERE did anyone here say Lively should settle now for basically nothing even though her remaining claims are worth more, and here is one of several comments where Baldoni supporters take it upon themselves to advise Lively to settle now ASAP, with this one saying she should basically settle for no money and donate money together to non-profits.

I wrote that post and frankly you seem unwell. Your posts are rabidly immature. And nowhere did I say ‘settle ASAP!!! But I didn’t realize Livelys case was about money for her. I thought it was about women and her reputation. Personally I think she had some fairly significant liability she could be facing the way she handled this bc I think it’s pretty clear she wasn’t SH under any legal theory. I think today was a win for her and if I were her lawyers I would personally advise her to try to shut this mess down and take this victory lap. But I realize you don’t agree bc you don’t seem to be able to be objective at all

DP. I am a lawyer and I agree with this. I think today was a win for her but I don’t think overall this case has benefited her at all, and I think her chances of winning in front of a jury are slim to none. I think she should take a victory lap and try to make this go away while she has great leverage.

Two more apparent Baldoni supporters only seeing attorneys (apparently) urging Lively to take this win and settle to make this case go away.

I assume that these are two of the same lawyers who have been arguing for hundreds of pages that leave to amend complaints are liberally granted and that Baldoni ran little risk by not amending his complaint, despite the judge’s urging to amend. There aren’t *that* many lawyers in here. Yet no comment from these attorneys above re the scorn they had for others who warned about dismissal with prejudice or their prior certainty that they were right. Just urges to settle, as per usual.

No discussion re how Freedman botched this or the ridiculousness of this $400M claim to start with. No accountability for prior comments supporting these claims here. This is an enormous win for Lively because the remaining claims are worth very little given how much money the film made, but you wouldn’t know it from reading these comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone TL;DR the status of this case? Baldoni’s defamation case against Blake and NYT are both dismissed. Lively pulled her emotional distress claims. What’s left?

Happily.

Lively v. Baldoni et al: This case is still pending and scheduled to go to trial next March. They are in the middle of the first stage of discovery (focused on document production, have not gotten to depositions yet). Yes Lively is dropping two claims that specifically allege intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, her core claims are all still standing, including sexual harassment and retaliation, which are her core claims. This case is unaffected by today's decisions.

Baldoni et al v. Lively/Reynolds/Sloane/NYT: This case has been dismissed in full, however some claims have been dismissed with prejudice (meaning they cannot be refiled) and some have been dismissed without prejudice (meaning they could be refiled if the plaintiffs fix some of the problems).

Defamation and extortion claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Liman said the only actually defamatory statements alleged were within the CRD complaint, which is privileged. And there was simply no extortion alleged at all -- Baldoni et al failed to identify a single thing of value they were extorted out of of. The movie made them a ton of money. They still own the movie. The end, we're never hearing about this again.

There are two contract-related claims that have been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These are the tortious interference claim and the breach of implied covenant. These were dismissed because the complaint failed to articulate a legal basis for these claims. In theory, they can file a second amended complaint outlining these claims. I think it's unlikely they will fill the tortious interference claim because I don't think there's an underlying contract breach (because I don't think William Morris violated its contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer when they dropped them as a client -- most agent contracts give agents broad leeway in dropping clients). The breach of implied covenant is similarly problematic but might be more viable, I'd have to look at it.

If Baldoni does not refile any claims, the case will proceed with Lively as the sole plaintiff, and Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, Jed Wallace, Jen Abel, and Melissa Nathan as defendants. The case would just be about whether or not sexual harassment occurred on the set, and whether Lively was retaliated against for raising SH concerns.

The New York Times, Leslie Sloane, and Ryan Reynolds are no longer parties to the lawsuit at all (and RR is the only one who could be dragged back in if they refile those contract claims based on his statements to WM reps about Baldoni's behavior).

For the person who wanted a recap, see above. Nothing important has happened since this was posted a few hours ago.

Oh so this is nothing about Blake’s substantive claims, which I think most people see as pretty flimsy. It’s a victory for her, but not as huge as I was thinking from all the posting on here!!

lol maybe this is actually a win for Baldoni! Nothing to see here, move along!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Sorry, what? You think you were ‘abused’? You’ve been a total psycho so many times on this thread. No one abused you.

These are the same users who think Elyse Dorsey was victimized because she *check notes* cheated on her husband and pursued a 10+ year long affair with someone, so of course they think they were abused.

[Anonymous]

Why would I take seriously the assessment that Lively's claims are "flimsy" from people who also swore up and down that Baldoni had a viable extortion claim, that even if his defamation claim against the NYT failed due to privilege he had a strong case against Lively and Reynolds, and that it was inevitable that Taylor Swift and probably also Hugh Jackman would be witnesses at trial?

Look, I'm sorry you all have been getting all your information on this case from Tik Tokkers who are just telling you what you want to hear because they want the clicks and cash. But some of us have been trying to tell you for months that this precise outcome was inevitable. And you might try to revise history now and say oh whatever I knew all along Baldoni's whole lawsuit would be dismissed but go look at the prior 815 pages of this thread for proof that no, you did not.

So you are actually not in a position to evaluate the strength of Lively's claims right now. You just took a big fat L and were very, very wrong about Baldoni's whole case. Have an ounce of humility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But surely what Gottlieb really regrets now is that he has provided Freedman a roadmap for his remaining two claims instead of refraining to file any MTD at all. So I guess he sent them to the grocery store for milk, or the hardware store for nails, or something like that, and surely has deep regrets because although Gottlieb was able to obtain nearly everything on his list, now Freedman knows what’s on his list, or something like that.

’
Is this sarcastic? I think this was a good day for Lively but I think overall this case has been horrible for her, and I think a trial would be a big mistake. I think the Lively people on here will snark, but I objectively think this would be a great opportunity for her to push for a settlement and try to end this mess that she shouldn’t have started. And no, I’m not saying for 400 million. Maybe that each agree to withdraw claims and release a joint statement and donate a sum to some NFP. Unfortunately I wonder if her team is giving her smart guidance though

Someone said, in response to my comment, WHERE did anyone here say Lively should settle now for basically nothing even though her remaining claims are worth more, and here is one of several comments where Baldoni supporters take it upon themselves to advise Lively to settle now ASAP, with this one saying she should basically settle for no money and donate money together to non-profits.

I wrote that post and frankly you seem unwell. Your posts are rabidly immature. And nowhere did I say ‘settle ASAP!!! But I didn’t realize Livelys case was about money for her. I thought it was about women and her reputation. Personally I think she had some fairly significant liability she could be facing the way she handled this bc I think it’s pretty clear she wasn’t SH under any legal theory. I think today was a win for her and if I were her lawyers I would personally advise her to try to shut this mess down and take this victory lap. But I realize you don’t agree bc you don’t seem to be able to be objective at all

DP. I am a lawyer and I agree with this. I think today was a win for her but I don’t think overall this case has benefited her at all, and I think her chances of winning in front of a jury are slim to none. I think she should take a victory lap and try to make this go away while she has great leverage.

Two more apparent Baldoni supporters only seeing attorneys (apparently) urging Lively to take this win and settle to make this case go away.

I assume that these are two of the same lawyers who have been arguing for hundreds of pages that leave to amend complaints are liberally granted and that Baldoni ran little risk by not amending his complaint, despite the judge’s urging to amend. There aren’t *that* many lawyers in here. Yet no comment from these attorneys above re the scorn they had for others who warned about dismissal with prejudice or their prior certainty that they were right. Just urges to settle, as per usual.

No discussion re how Freedman botched this or the ridiculousness of this $400M claim to start with. No accountability for prior comments supporting these claims here. This is an enormous win for Lively because the remaining claims are worth very little given how much money the film made, but you wouldn’t know it from reading these comments.

Lady, this is a chat board. People get to express their opinions. You’ve done that ad nauseum for hundreds of pages. No one owes you anything.