Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Just saw this suggested on Reddit and thought it was interesting (link to thread here, this quote is from the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1l7o47r/did_people_actually_read_all_the_legal_filings/):

"Baldoni’s entire defense was that Blake supposedly made up the sexual harassment to steal the movie. That claim’s been thrown out and can’t be brought up again. I have no idea what Baldoni’s defense is even going to be now. Why did she “lie” about being sexually harassed?"

I am not sure this is true or not and would be curious what others think. But if it is true, this would make this loss a much bigger deal that I think a lot of people currently think it is, because it could have implications for how well Justin can defend himself against the SH allegations. I'm curious if a jury will be as persuaded by just a straightforward defense (this didn't happen, she is lying or her perception is wrong) rather than this theory they've been putting forward that she was lying on purpose in order to gain control of the movie or obtain the rights to the sequel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this suggested on Reddit and thought it was interesting (link to thread here, this quote is from the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1l7o47r/did_people_actually_read_all_the_legal_filings/):

"Baldoni’s entire defense was that Blake supposedly made up the sexual harassment to steal the movie. That claim’s been thrown out and can’t be brought up again. I have no idea what Baldoni’s defense is even going to be now. Why did she “lie” about being sexually harassed?"

I am not sure this is true or not and would be curious what others think. But if it is true, this would make this loss a much bigger deal that I think a lot of people currently think it is, because it could have implications for how well Justin can defend himself against the SH allegations. I'm curious if a jury will be as persuaded by just a straightforward defense (this didn't happen, she is lying or her perception is wrong) rather than this theory they've been putting forward that she was lying on purpose in order to gain control of the movie or obtain the rights to the sequel.

He can still use that theory to explain her behavior, he just can’t use it as a basis for an award of damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just do not understand the Blake Lively 'hate'. She doesn't seem any worse or more annoying than some other celebs. I really do think that there has been some sort of online propaganda campaign that has people really riled up. I guess I can see how she can come off as a little annoying or aloof but definitely not worthy of the vitriol and definitely not the only woman celeb like this.

And I say this as an anti-Meghan Markler so it's not like I can't have irrationally strong feelings of dislike towards celebs I don't even know.

Really? A lot of people have come out of the woodwork claiming she was abusive or toxic in prior workplaces. The cherry on top of the toxic cake was Taylor Swift.

If anything, the break with Taylor shows Blake has no grip on reality because she genuinely believed they were on the same playing field. You say you don’t understand the hate against Blake, have you forgotten how massive the backlash was against celebrities who wronged TS in the past? Jake Gyllenhall, Kim k, Kanye. Scooter Braun, etc. Blake thought she could blackmail Taylor and walk away unscathed. She thought she would win in a PR war with the world’s biggest pop star.

Blake’s also finding out that Taylor’s friendship shielded her from a lot of hate for her own bad behavior in the past. And now she’s fair game not only for anyone she’s pissed off, but also for an army of Swifties ready to strike. Taylor just won a battle against her former label to own her music, her fans are ready for the next villain. Blake fills those shoes perfectly.

That would be a little weird given that Baldoni's PR firm was poised to take down Swift fans and their brand of feminism. Your whole comment above is written like we are all still in high school trying to date the same guy or something, but go off.

I frankly would not be shocked if Swift now said something kind about Lively given what a huge and emotional win this is for her, but I hope she doesn't, because it would frankly make her look like a fair weather friend, whereas I had thought she was someone who stuck through thick and thin usually.

I was also kinda wondering if this would would make things more amicable for Swift. Of course, this depends on whether Lively actually threatened her about releasing her texts. Obviously then Taylor is completely justified. I don't accept it as fact because it has never been said by any named source other than Freedman, and we have no idea what, if anything, Venable gave Freedman. As I posted earlier I guess congrats to Freedman for pulling that little stunt before the MTD decision dropped because Swift really wasn't relevant without extortion.

[Anonymous]

Again, the burden is now on her to prove SH happened and that the “untraceable smear campaign” happened as a result. Those are 2 difficult things to prove to a jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not realize until today that Liman is a nepobaby. Dad was Arthur Liman, a very famous lawyer for his role in investigating the Iran Contra affair among other things.

Me too. Total nepo baby!

I think this is a weird definition of nepo baby. Lots of people go into the same field as their parents. And Liman has very real bona fides for his job -- he went to Yale Law School where he was on the Law Review (you could argue his dad's connections could get him a spot at Yale Law maybe, but no one makes law review by pulling strings -- you have to earn it and it's hard) and then his career path is a bunch of extremely hard jobs where you can't coast or rest on connections: SCOTUS clerk, associate at Cravath, worked his way up at the US Attorneys office to become Deputy Chief of Appeals, then partnership at Wilmer and then Cleary before being nominated to a federal judgeship via a bipartisan nomination process (recommended by Democratic Senators and then formally nominated by a Republican).

I'm sure his dad's connections have helped him throughout his career but this is substantively distinct from an actor who gets a plum role in a major film at 16 because their parents know the director or producer. It sounds like he worked very hard to get to the place he's at now.

Also reading his decisions, he's not some intellectual slouch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this suggested on Reddit and thought it was interesting (link to thread here, this quote is from the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1l7o47r/did_people_actually_read_all_the_legal_filings/):

"Baldoni’s entire defense was that Blake supposedly made up the sexual harassment to steal the movie. That claim’s been thrown out and can’t be brought up again. I have no idea what Baldoni’s defense is even going to be now. Why did she “lie” about being sexually harassed?"

I am not sure this is true or not and would be curious what others think. But if it is true, this would make this loss a much bigger deal that I think a lot of people currently think it is, because it could have implications for how well Justin can defend himself against the SH allegations. I'm curious if a jury will be as persuaded by just a straightforward defense (this didn't happen, she is lying or her perception is wrong) rather than this theory they've been putting forward that she was lying on purpose in order to gain control of the movie or obtain the rights to the sequel.

He can still use that theory to explain her behavior, he just can’t use it as a basis for an award of damages.

It might be harder than you think. You aren't allowed to just introduce any theory you want at trial without evidence of it. I'm not actually sure that Liman will allow them to pursue this theory during witness questioning or opening/closing arguments if they can't support it with some evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, the burden is now on her to prove SH happened and that the “untraceable smear campaign” happened as a result. Those are 2 difficult things to prove to a jury.

Seems like only yesterday you guys were saying it was really incredibly difficult to get claims dismissed with prejudice. And yet ...

[Anonymous]

Did you guys know that some Baldoni supporter started a petition supporting Baldoni? And that the signatures on the petition were supposed to be submitted with an amicus brief by some supportive organization, TBA, in support of Baldoni's legal position in the case?

That petition got up to 162 signatures last night and today appears to have stalled there and been withdrawn. Oh well. That could have been TWO whole amicus briefs submitted in support of male feminist Justin Baldoni, presumably arguing against the constitutionality of the California law re defamation claims. https://www.change.org/p/9dc9ae44-8693-49cf-b4dd-29c57c92ee2a?recruiter=1375668261&recruited_by_id=133f60b0-42e5-11f0-ac76-c3bda3790b23&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not realize until today that Liman is a nepobaby. Dad was Arthur Liman, a very famous lawyer for his role in investigating the Iran Contra affair among other things.

Me too. Total nepo baby!

I think this is a weird definition of nepo baby. Lots of people go into the same field as their parents. And Liman has very real bona fides for his job -- he went to Yale Law School where he was on the Law Review (you could argue his dad's connections could get him a spot at Yale Law maybe, but no one makes law review by pulling strings -- you have to earn it and it's hard) and then his career path is a bunch of extremely hard jobs where you can't coast or rest on connections: SCOTUS clerk, associate at Cravath, worked his way up at the US Attorneys office to become Deputy Chief of Appeals, then partnership at Wilmer and then Cleary before being nominated to a federal judgeship via a bipartisan nomination process (recommended by Democratic Senators and then formally nominated by a Republican).

I'm sure his dad's connections have helped him throughout his career but this is substantively distinct from an actor who gets a plum role in a major film at 16 because their parents know the director or producer. It sounds like he worked very hard to get to the place he's at now.

Also reading his decisions, he's not some intellectual slouch.

I also worked at one of those two firms and was on Law Review at an Ivy League law school. It’s pretty unusual to go from law firm partner to federal judge with no intermediary judicial positions.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively fans must be in a state of euphoria today. All two dozen of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Does anyone think Baldoni et al will appeal? I think that there will be a number of 3rd parties who might want to help appeal the decision against the NYT.

I would love to see him appeal the defamation claims, I think there is an argument that what she did went behind the litigation privilege, particularly in light of the Van Zan stuff.

I don’t disagree but I think he needs a real defamation lawyer for that appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake Lively fans must be in a state of euphoria today. All two dozen of them.

Well that's an improvement since everyone has been saying it was only one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not realize until today that Liman is a nepobaby. Dad was Arthur Liman, a very famous lawyer for his role in investigating the Iran Contra affair among other things.

Me too. Total nepo baby!

I think this is a weird definition of nepo baby. Lots of people go into the same field as their parents. And Liman has very real bona fides for his job -- he went to Yale Law School where he was on the Law Review (you could argue his dad's connections could get him a spot at Yale Law maybe, but no one makes law review by pulling strings -- you have to earn it and it's hard) and then his career path is a bunch of extremely hard jobs where you can't coast or rest on connections: SCOTUS clerk, associate at Cravath, worked his way up at the US Attorneys office to become Deputy Chief of Appeals, then partnership at Wilmer and then Cleary before being nominated to a federal judgeship via a bipartisan nomination process (recommended by Democratic Senators and then formally nominated by a Republican).

I'm sure his dad's connections have helped him throughout his career but this is substantively distinct from an actor who gets a plum role in a major film at 16 because their parents know the director or producer. It sounds like he worked very hard to get to the place he's at now.

Also reading his decisions, he's not some intellectual slouch.

I also worked at one of those two firms and was on Law Review at an Ivy League law school. It’s pretty unusual to go from law firm partner to federal judge with no intermediary judicial positions.

Adding he was found well qualified by the ABA, but his dad was so well known in the areas he’s practiced, there is no escaping his shadow. It’s really just an observation,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, the burden is now on her to prove SH happened and that the “untraceable smear campaign” happened as a result. Those are 2 difficult things to prove to a jury.

Seems like only yesterday you guys were saying it was really incredibly difficult to get claims dismissed with prejudice. And yet ...

It is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Does anyone think Baldoni et al will appeal? I think that there will be a number of 3rd parties who might want to help appeal the decision against the NYT.

I would love to see him appeal the defamation claims, I think there is an argument that what she did went behind the litigation privilege, particularly in light of the Van Zan stuff.

I don’t disagree but I think he needs a real defamation lawyer for that appeal.

Definitely, Freedman would not be the right person for an appeal of this sort, would want an appellate specialist.