Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nah, Justin comes off as the victim. People will sympathize with him. Not so much with Blake.

Why will people sympathize with him? He comes off as tone deaf and cowardly to me. Sarowitz comes off as a big bully which helps Blake, Ryan comes off as a big bully which helps Baldoni. I tend to think people will be less likely to hold Reynolds' behavior against him because (1) positive associations with his movies -- you cannot underestimate this, it helped Depp in his trial, and (2) people tend to give more leeway to a man who is seen to be acting to protect his wife or kids. It's a misogynistic attitude but it's very widespread, I've seen some nasty behavior justified this way before.

I think people are way underestimating how bad these Sarowitz comments are. If the Hamas quote or the email where Sarowitz threatens to come to set to remind Blake who is playing, or this quote from the depo, wind up in court, I think it helps Blake. Because even if you don't like her, all this taken together sound like threats by an employer towards a former employee. If they can convince the jury that these threats were in "retaliation" for her complaints... it's not really a stretch.

I would not have anticipated that Sarowitz would be the big bad in this one but that's how it's shaping up now.

The testimony will likely end up in front of a jury. Video deposition testimony is frequently used in civil cases. If it’s being highlighted now, it will very likely be used later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He bankrolled the retaliation.

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

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

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

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

Wouldn’t the question of whether this created an employment contract be settled at the MTD stage, not MSJ or trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nah, Justin comes off as the victim. People will sympathize with him. Not so much with Blake.

Why will people sympathize with him? He comes off as tone deaf and cowardly to me. Sarowitz comes off as a big bully which helps Blake, Ryan comes off as a big bully which helps Baldoni. I tend to think people will be less likely to hold Reynolds' behavior against him because (1) positive associations with his movies -- you cannot underestimate this, it helped Depp in his trial, and (2) people tend to give more leeway to a man who is seen to be acting to protect his wife or kids. It's a misogynistic attitude but it's very widespread, I've seen some nasty behavior justified this way before.

I think people are way underestimating how bad these Sarowitz comments are. If the Hamas quote or the email where Sarowitz threatens to come to set to remind Blake who is playing, or this quote from the depo, wind up in court, I think it helps Blake. Because even if you don't like her, all this taken together sound like threats by an employer towards a former employee. If they can convince the jury that these threats were in "retaliation" for her complaints... it's not really a stretch.

I would not have anticipated that Sarowitz would be the big bad in this one but that's how it's shaping up now.

The testimony will likely end up in front of a jury. Video deposition testimony is frequently used in civil cases. If it’s being highlighted now, it will very likely be used later.

Not if the witness appears at trial.unless for impeachment purposes. It’s not really a concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He bankrolled the retaliation.

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

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

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

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

Wouldn’t the question of whether this created an employment contract be settled at the MTD stage, not MSJ or trial?

Well, there is both a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment pending. I think when the contract is unsigned, as here, judge needs to consider other evidence to see if there os an implied contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nah, Justin comes off as the victim. People will sympathize with him. Not so much with Blake.

Why will people sympathize with him? He comes off as tone deaf and cowardly to me. Sarowitz comes off as a big bully which helps Blake, Ryan comes off as a big bully which helps Baldoni. I tend to think people will be less likely to hold Reynolds' behavior against him because (1) positive associations with his movies -- you cannot underestimate this, it helped Depp in his trial, and (2) people tend to give more leeway to a man who is seen to be acting to protect his wife or kids. It's a misogynistic attitude but it's very widespread, I've seen some nasty behavior justified this way before.

I think people are way underestimating how bad these Sarowitz comments are. If the Hamas quote or the email where Sarowitz threatens to come to set to remind Blake who is playing, or this quote from the depo, wind up in court, I think it helps Blake. Because even if you don't like her, all this taken together sound like threats by an employer towards a former employee. If they can convince the jury that these threats were in "retaliation" for her complaints... it's not really a stretch.

I would not have anticipated that Sarowitz would be the big bad in this one but that's how it's shaping up now.

The testimony will likely end up in front of a jury. Video deposition testimony is frequently used in civil cases. If it’s being highlighted now, it will very likely be used later.

Not if the witness appears at trial.unless for impeachment purposes. It’s not really a concern.

Unfortunately I think it will be used. Blake is claiming this video looked like porn to her, so it's part of the SH claim both because it was inappropriate to show it and for how they reacted to her not wanting to watch it. It would be relevant for the jury to see what it actually was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nah, Justin comes off as the victim. People will sympathize with him. Not so much with Blake.

Why will people sympathize with him? He comes off as tone deaf and cowardly to me. Sarowitz comes off as a big bully which helps Blake, Ryan comes off as a big bully which helps Baldoni. I tend to think people will be less likely to hold Reynolds' behavior against him because (1) positive associations with his movies -- you cannot underestimate this, it helped Depp in his trial, and (2) people tend to give more leeway to a man who is seen to be acting to protect his wife or kids. It's a misogynistic attitude but it's very widespread, I've seen some nasty behavior justified this way before.

I think people are way underestimating how bad these Sarowitz comments are. If the Hamas quote or the email where Sarowitz threatens to come to set to remind Blake who is playing, or this quote from the depo, wind up in court, I think it helps Blake. Because even if you don't like her, all this taken together sound like threats by an employer towards a former employee. If they can convince the jury that these threats were in "retaliation" for her complaints... it's not really a stretch.

I would not have anticipated that Sarowitz would be the big bad in this one but that's how it's shaping up now.

The testimony will likely end up in front of a jury. Video deposition testimony is frequently used in civil cases. If it’s being highlighted now, it will very likely be used later.

Not if the witness appears at trial.unless for impeachment purposes. It’s not really a concern.

Unfortunately I think it will be used. Blake is claiming this video looked like porn to her, so it's part of the SH claim both because it was inappropriate to show it and for how they reacted to her not wanting to watch it. It would be relevant for the jury to see what it actually was.

I was talking about out the deposition testimony of Sarowitz. She is going tp look stupid insisting she was shown a birthing video other clip other what he has on his phone. I’m not sure her lawyers will let her go this route. It really only would make sense if Liman granted the sanction of him losing the ability to testify n the issue. Significant risk it further damages her credibility with the Jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nah, Justin comes off as the victim. People will sympathize with him. Not so much with Blake.

Why will people sympathize with him? He comes off as tone deaf and cowardly to me. Sarowitz comes off as a big bully which helps Blake, Ryan comes off as a big bully which helps Baldoni. I tend to think people will be less likely to hold Reynolds' behavior against him because (1) positive associations with his movies -- you cannot underestimate this, it helped Depp in his trial, and (2) people tend to give more leeway to a man who is seen to be acting to protect his wife or kids. It's a misogynistic attitude but it's very widespread, I've seen some nasty behavior justified this way before.

I think people are way underestimating how bad these Sarowitz comments are. If the Hamas quote or the email where Sarowitz threatens to come to set to remind Blake who is playing, or this quote from the depo, wind up in court, I think it helps Blake. Because even if you don't like her, all this taken together sound like threats by an employer towards a former employee. If they can convince the jury that these threats were in "retaliation" for her complaints... it's not really a stretch.

I would not have anticipated that Sarowitz would be the big bad in this one but that's how it's shaping up now.

The testimony will likely end up in front of a jury. Video deposition testimony is frequently used in civil cases. If it’s being highlighted now, it will very likely be used later.

Not if the witness appears at trial.unless for impeachment purposes. It’s not really a concern.

Unfortunately I think it will be used. Blake is claiming this video looked like porn to her, so it's part of the SH claim both because it was inappropriate to show it and for how they reacted to her not wanting to watch it. It would be relevant for the jury to see what it actually was.

I was talking about out the deposition testimony of Sarowitz. She is going tp look stupid insisting she was shown a birthing video other clip other what he has on his phone. I’m not sure her lawyers will let her go this route. It really only would make sense if Liman granted the sanction of him losing the ability to testify n the issue. Significant risk it further damages her credibility with the Jury.

By he, I mean Jamey Heath?

[Anonymous]

Lively wanted 3 extra weeks until the MSJ stuff was unsealed, so Liman gives her another month. Thanks Judge Liman!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively wanted 3 extra weeks until the MSJ stuff was unsealed, so Liman gives her another month. Thanks Judge Liman!

Apparently there is a bunch of her texts, among other things. She can't hide them forever.

[Anonymous]

The birth video thing is really weird because it’s my understanding it was a water birth. Did they have an under water camera just aimed at her V for several minutes before the baby crowned?

This whole her legs were splayed open like a p$$n video makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The birth video thing is really weird because it’s my understanding it was a water birth. Did they have an under water camera just aimed at her V for several minutes before the baby crowned?

This whole her legs were splayed open like a p$$n video makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough!

[Anonymous]

Blake genuinely sounds like a dumb child in that boots video lol. I cannot believe she's 40.

[Anonymous]

BL having a video of another woman giving birth shown at her request to a jury will bury her in the eyes of the jury, No one on a jury wants that shared by anyone but the person giving birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The birth video thing is really weird because it’s my understanding it was a water birth. Did they have an under water camera just aimed at her V for several minutes before the baby crowned?

This whole her legs were splayed open like a p$$n video makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough!

Will we though? Judge was very clear that video was to be treated as highly confidential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BL having a video of another woman giving birth shown at her request to a jury will bury her in the eyes of the jury, No one on a jury wants that shared by anyone but the person giving birth.

If this happens, agree. Plus Heath’s testimony will create a credibility issue for her.