Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

She isn't winning a dime nor would he ever pay her a dime. She and her husband were forced to blow millions the last 6 months because they never predicted Justin would fight back and online sleuths would expose their scam. The two hoax bullies figured he'd lay down and take it and they're casually destroy his life and move on with their life like Daisy and Tom Buchanan -- "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness."

The settlement will be $0 as both parties realize this is futile and just bleeding money for no reason. As usual, billable hours win in the end.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

How are her options different now?

Any settlement negotiation now flows financially in her direction -- she has no potential legal liability towards Baldoni now so any settlement will involve him paying her, not the other way around. This gives her the upper hand in settlement negotiations.

Since she's no longer defending claims against her, her legal team no longer has to balance her priorities as a defendant against her priorities as a plaintiff. They can make decisions about discovery, how to approach her deposition, even what witnesses to call without having to worry about it potentially impacting her defense against his claims.

With Sloane and Reynolds now out of the litigation altogether, it simplifies her approach to PR. She can focus PR on just portraying herself in a sympathetic life, and it's not longer so much about her and Ryan as an embattled couple. That streamlining seems like no big deal but look how well it's worked for Baldoni, out in Hawaii with his family. It's easier for Lively to look sympathetic if she's standing alone (or potentially with other women, depending on how things shake out with the rest of the cast and testifying) than if she's always linked to Ryan as co-defendants.

Whatever they've budgeted for this litigation, it now all gets pushed toward her case. This has a bunch of benefits, both financial and practical. Every motion and response her team has to produce costs money and a lot of man hours from her legal team -- with Justin's claims gone, this either cuts their workload down or allows them to invest more time and money in Lively's claims. This is especially critical as discovery proceeds and they will need to go through everything that has been produced plus start to prep all their witnesses for depositions.

There are probably others, but it really cannot be understated how beneficial this decision is, coming at this time. It's not some pyrrhic victory -- this meaningfully changes the landscape for Lively for the better in pretty much every way.

I think it highly unlikely he doesn’t either amend his complaint and/or appeal some or all of f the dismissal. But yes, she has a reprieve for a week or two, and will be facing fewer counter claims.

Agree. That’s why I think she should strike when the iron is hot and try to settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She isn't winning a dime nor would he ever pay her a dime. She and her husband were forced to blow millions the last 6 months because they never predicted Justin would fight back and online sleuths would expose their scam. The two hoax bullies figured he'd lay down and take it and they're casually destroy his life and move on with their life like Daisy and Tom Buchanan -- "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness."

The settlement will be $0 as both parties realize this is futile and just bleeding money for no reason. As usual, billable hours win in the end.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman's statement ends with a declaration of intent that he will take Lively's deposition. "Most importantly, Ms. Lively’s own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking." lol, this guy! I think this is actually the main leverage they have remaining at this point.

He talks about filing an amended complaint but not about appeal.

He also says Lively is focused on the "untraceable" smear campaign and that Lively uses the word "untraceable" because they can't find evidence of it, but actually that was the language used by Baldoni's own PR team, so this is not really the burn he thinks it is.

That statement is alright but it shouldn't have taken a day to come up with it. It suggests they really were caught off guard and thought they would have plenty of time and an easy roadmap to rewrite all their claims.

I agree. Fwiw, this was Freedman's letter to the judge on April 15 saying he wouldn't amend the complaint, clearly not envisioning the bomb that dropped on them yesterday: "As counsel for Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Melissa Nathan, The Agency Group PR LLC, and Jennifer Abel (collectively, the “Wayfarer Parties”), we write to notify the Court that the Wayfarer Parties do not intend to move for leave to amend their pleading by the April 18, 2025 deadline set forth in the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The Wayfarer Parties stand behind the operative First Amended Complaint and are confident that, for the reasons outlined in their opposition briefs (Dkt. Nos. 121, 127, 160, 162), the currently-pending motions to dismiss will be denied. If the Court were to grant one or more of the motions to any extent, the Wayfarer Parties will move for leave to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and seek a commensurate modification of the Scheduling Order under the “good cause” standard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and consistent with the guidance set forth in Furry Puppet Studio Inc. v. Fall Out Boy."

Like his current TMZ statement, Freedman projects cheerful positive vibez at all times about his prospects even though such projections often do not comport with reality.

So it sounds like his options right now are:
-Amend the claims dismissed without prejudice by June 23 (they plan to do this)
-Move for leave to amend the claims dismissed with prejudice with "good cause" (which seems pointless because Liman is not going to allow that after he flouted previous opportunities)
-Appeal the dismissals (no indication yet they plan to do this)

I think he can leave to amend to add new claims if any have arisen based on the discovery so far. Perhaps there is none

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

“Justin never depended on his image”?!?!

What fresh hellscape of denial is this?

Baldoni’s image has been completely wrapped up in his male feminist “Man Enough” persona for years. That’s gone. How does he even return to acting or directing at this point? Who backs him besides Sarowitz? He has been in Hawaii for months, hiding.

Right, but the scale is just so different. He had a podcast but wasn’t trying to launch product lines and lifestyle brands (Blake’s brand closed after a year in 2015 and she tried to capitalize on the Barbie mania and launch another lifestyle brand in 2022 called Dreamhouse and she was shot down. ) she has a beverage line and hair line - that takes brand and doesn’t compare to what Justin was trying to do in get a few thousand people to subscribe to a podcast.

She seemed to be trying to revive her acting career and that requires the public being willing to pay money to see her on screen. The scale for Justin is just very different.

Alternatively, Blake is a known quantity after two decades in the public eye and especially since her marriage to Reynolds. And that includes her mean girl persona, which has always been part of public perception of Blake since Gossip Girl -- the major reason the recent PR turn for her has been so negative is that there have been negative stories about Blake for years and years and a lot of that has been revived and refocused. But since she's never been angling for America's Sweetheart, Blake has an unusual ability to weather these kinds of criticisms, which is why all the past allegations about her being a jerk to Leighton Meister or about how Harrison Ford apparently couldn't stand her on the set of Age of Adeline, haven't really diminished her bankability. To some degree, I think Blake occupies a space where people kind of enjoy hating her and thus the negative publicity is, in a weird way, beneficial for her. There are a lot of celebs like this -- Gwyneth Paltrow is an easy one, I think Madonna falls in this category. More recently, people seem to have really mixed feelings about Dakota Johnson (nepo baby, got absolutely roasted for Madame Webb, has had many sort of weird public appearances that aren't likable so much as off putting). But you know the old adage: all publicity is good publicity. Being semi-hated by the public isn't the death knell you might think it is, especially for someone who has never *really* been well liked by the public but can still be embraced, especially when she's playing unlikeable characters like Serena Van Der Woodson or whatever her Simple Favor character is called.

Justin, on the other hand, built most of his public image on the idea of him not merely being a "good guy" but specifically being an advocate for women. He has much more to lose here, IMO. He was just starting to gain traction at a higher level with IEWU, getting the Pacman movie (which I think will never happen now) and it was all wrapped around his "Man Enough" image and being a sensitive guy who "gets it." Even if Blake loses her case, I think if this thing goes to trial and people really dive into how the IEWU set was run and his behavior on set and maybe elsewhere (see where his former podcast co-host Liz Plank appears gleeful at him losing this case and ask yourself what an interview with Plank about the experience of working with Baldoni might look like after this all shakes out), he will be very limited in PR angles. The one most available to him is to go full MRA, which will be extremely limiting (ask Louis CK).

[Anonymous]

BL apparently "won," yet her shills can't celebrate this victory and insist on arguing with JB supporters. I think it's because they secretly know, deep down, the general public hates her. Just absolutely loathes the frizzy haired loser.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

“Justin never depended on his image”?!?!

What fresh hellscape of denial is this?

Baldoni’s image has been completely wrapped up in his male feminist “Man Enough” persona for years. That’s gone. How does he even return to acting or directing at this point? Who backs him besides Sarowitz? He has been in Hawaii for months, hiding.

Right, but the scale is just so different. He had a podcast but wasn’t trying to launch product lines and lifestyle brands (Blake’s brand closed after a year in 2015 and she tried to capitalize on the Barbie mania and launch another lifestyle brand in 2022 called Dreamhouse and she was shot down. ) she has a beverage line and hair line - that takes brand and doesn’t compare to what Justin was trying to do in get a few thousand people to subscribe to a podcast.

She seemed to be trying to revive her acting career and that requires the public being willing to pay money to see her on screen. The scale for Justin is just very different.

Alternatively, Blake is a known quantity after two decades in the public eye and especially since her marriage to Reynolds. And that includes her mean girl persona, which has always been part of public perception of Blake since Gossip Girl -- the major reason the recent PR turn for her has been so negative is that there have been negative stories about Blake for years and years and a lot of that has been revived and refocused. But since she's never been angling for America's Sweetheart, Blake has an unusual ability to weather these kinds of criticisms, which is why all the past allegations about her being a jerk to Leighton Meister or about how Harrison Ford apparently couldn't stand her on the set of Age of Adeline, haven't really diminished her bankability. To some degree, I think Blake occupies a space where people kind of enjoy hating her and thus the negative publicity is, in a weird way, beneficial for her. There are a lot of celebs like this -- Gwyneth Paltrow is an easy one, I think Madonna falls in this category. More recently, people seem to have really mixed feelings about Dakota Johnson (nepo baby, got absolutely roasted for Madame Webb, has had many sort of weird public appearances that aren't likable so much as off putting). But you know the old adage: all publicity is good publicity. Being semi-hated by the public isn't the death knell you might think it is, especially for someone who has never *really* been well liked by the public but can still be embraced, especially when she's playing unlikeable characters like Serena Van Der Woodson or whatever her Simple Favor character is called.

Justin, on the other hand, built most of his public image on the idea of him not merely being a "good guy" but specifically being an advocate for women. He has much more to lose here, IMO. He was just starting to gain traction at a higher level with IEWU, getting the Pacman movie (which I think will never happen now) and it was all wrapped around his "Man Enough" image and being a sensitive guy who "gets it." Even if Blake loses her case, I think if this thing goes to trial and people really dive into how the IEWU set was run and his behavior on set and maybe elsewhere (see where his former podcast co-host Liz Plank appears gleeful at him losing this case and ask yourself what an interview with Plank about the experience of working with Baldoni might look like after this all shakes out), he will be very limited in PR angles. The one most available to him is to go full MRA, which will be extremely limiting (ask Louis CK).

You said you were leaving to talk about this with other Blake supporters, why are you still here? And try to lie by saying you're not that poster; we recognize you by the endless word salad, much like your fave (Blake).

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP, taking notes on your considered thoughts on how reasonable Baldoni fans have been in this thread in talking about settlement a whole hour after you/someone just called me “brain damaged,” hang on.

How many millions in legal fees do you think Blake and Ryan have incurred so far? My guess is $2 to 3 million and maybe 75 percent of the fees to get to trial still to come.

I think easily $3 - $4 million so far and they will hit $10 million if this goes to trial.

Partner billable rates are typically well over 1k an hour now.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

This is obvious to most lawyers

I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?

I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.

Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.

Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.

This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.

It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

“Justin never depended on his image”?!?!

What fresh hellscape of denial is this?

Baldoni’s image has been completely wrapped up in his male feminist “Man Enough” persona for years. That’s gone. How does he even return to acting or directing at this point? Who backs him besides Sarowitz? He has been in Hawaii for months, hiding.

Right, but the scale is just so different. He had a podcast but wasn’t trying to launch product lines and lifestyle brands (Blake’s brand closed after a year in 2015 and she tried to capitalize on the Barbie mania and launch another lifestyle brand in 2022 called Dreamhouse and she was shot down. ) she has a beverage line and hair line - that takes brand and doesn’t compare to what Justin was trying to do in get a few thousand people to subscribe to a podcast.

She seemed to be trying to revive her acting career and that requires the public being willing to pay money to see her on screen. The scale for Justin is just very different.

Alternatively, Blake is a known quantity after two decades in the public eye and especially since her marriage to Reynolds. And that includes her mean girl persona, which has always been part of public perception of Blake since Gossip Girl -- the major reason the recent PR turn for her has been so negative is that there have been negative stories about Blake for years and years and a lot of that has been revived and refocused. But since she's never been angling for America's Sweetheart, Blake has an unusual ability to weather these kinds of criticisms, which is why all the past allegations about her being a jerk to Leighton Meister or about how Harrison Ford apparently couldn't stand her on the set of Age of Adeline, haven't really diminished her bankability. To some degree, I think Blake occupies a space where people kind of enjoy hating her and thus the negative publicity is, in a weird way, beneficial for her. There are a lot of celebs like this -- Gwyneth Paltrow is an easy one, I think Madonna falls in this category. More recently, people seem to have really mixed feelings about Dakota Johnson (nepo baby, got absolutely roasted for Madame Webb, has had many sort of weird public appearances that aren't likable so much as off putting). But you know the old adage: all publicity is good publicity. Being semi-hated by the public isn't the death knell you might think it is, especially for someone who has never *really* been well liked by the public but can still be embraced, especially when she's playing unlikeable characters like Serena Van Der Woodson or whatever her Simple Favor character is called.

Justin, on the other hand, built most of his public image on the idea of him not merely being a "good guy" but specifically being an advocate for women. He has much more to lose here, IMO. He was just starting to gain traction at a higher level with IEWU, getting the Pacman movie (which I think will never happen now) and it was all wrapped around his "Man Enough" image and being a sensitive guy who "gets it." Even if Blake loses her case, I think if this thing goes to trial and people really dive into how the IEWU set was run and his behavior on set and maybe elsewhere (see where his former podcast co-host Liz Plank appears gleeful at him losing this case and ask yourself what an interview with Plank about the experience of working with Baldoni might look like after this all shakes out), he will be very limited in PR angles. The one most available to him is to go full MRA, which will be extremely limiting (ask Louis CK).

You said you were leaving to talk about this with other Blake supporters, why are you still here? And try to lie by saying you're not that poster; we recognize you by the endless word salad, much like your fave (Blake).

I am genuinely not whatever poster you are referring to, but of course you won't believe me. Easier to yell at me than actually read what I wrote and come up with any kind of response, I guess.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

“Justin never depended on his image”?!?!

What fresh hellscape of denial is this?

Baldoni’s image has been completely wrapped up in his male feminist “Man Enough” persona for years. That’s gone. How does he even return to acting or directing at this point? Who backs him besides Sarowitz? He has been in Hawaii for months, hiding.

Right, but the scale is just so different. He had a podcast but wasn’t trying to launch product lines and lifestyle brands (Blake’s brand closed after a year in 2015 and she tried to capitalize on the Barbie mania and launch another lifestyle brand in 2022 called Dreamhouse and she was shot down. ) she has a beverage line and hair line - that takes brand and doesn’t compare to what Justin was trying to do in get a few thousand people to subscribe to a podcast.

She seemed to be trying to revive her acting career and that requires the public being willing to pay money to see her on screen. The scale for Justin is just very different.

Alternatively, Blake is a known quantity after two decades in the public eye and especially since her marriage to Reynolds. And that includes her mean girl persona, which has always been part of public perception of Blake since Gossip Girl -- the major reason the recent PR turn for her has been so negative is that there have been negative stories about Blake for years and years and a lot of that has been revived and refocused. But since she's never been angling for America's Sweetheart, Blake has an unusual ability to weather these kinds of criticisms, which is why all the past allegations about her being a jerk to Leighton Meister or about how Harrison Ford apparently couldn't stand her on the set of Age of Adeline, haven't really diminished her bankability. To some degree, I think Blake occupies a space where people kind of enjoy hating her and thus the negative publicity is, in a weird way, beneficial for her. There are a lot of celebs like this -- Gwyneth Paltrow is an easy one, I think Madonna falls in this category. More recently, people seem to have really mixed feelings about Dakota Johnson (nepo baby, got absolutely roasted for Madame Webb, has had many sort of weird public appearances that aren't likable so much as off putting). But you know the old adage: all publicity is good publicity. Being semi-hated by the public isn't the death knell you might think it is, especially for someone who has never *really* been well liked by the public but can still be embraced, especially when she's playing unlikeable characters like Serena Van Der Woodson or whatever her Simple Favor character is called.

Justin, on the other hand, built most of his public image on the idea of him not merely being a "good guy" but specifically being an advocate for women. He has much more to lose here, IMO. He was just starting to gain traction at a higher level with IEWU, getting the Pacman movie (which I think will never happen now) and it was all wrapped around his "Man Enough" image and being a sensitive guy who "gets it." Even if Blake loses her case, I think if this thing goes to trial and people really dive into how the IEWU set was run and his behavior on set and maybe elsewhere (see where his former podcast co-host Liz Plank appears gleeful at him losing this case and ask yourself what an interview with Plank about the experience of working with Baldoni might look like after this all shakes out), he will be very limited in PR angles. The one most available to him is to go full MRA, which will be extremely limiting (ask Louis CK).

You are batshit. I hope you're just some peasant in an Indian bot farm paid 10 cents per screed. Otherwise... my gosh, you're unwell.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP, taking notes on your considered thoughts on how reasonable Baldoni fans have been in this thread in talking about settlement a whole hour after you/someone just called me “brain damaged,” hang on.

Right. You’re a ‘victim’.

I’m no fragile flower and I hold my own here, but I do find it laughable when Baldoni supporters keep insisting how measured and reasonable they’ve been over the last several hundred pages when I’ve been right here. Lie all you want but don’t be shocked by the call outs.

(Remember the days before Lively supporters started insulting back? And the thread was a one way conduit of insults by Baldoni supporters? I think you miss those days.).

NP. I have only seen Lively supporters being immature.

ORLY? Have you read this page? This sort of insult salad by Baldoni supporters has been constant throughout.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

This is obvious to most lawyers

I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?

I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.

Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.

Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.

This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.

It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.

DP.

I highly doubt there’s a settlement where he’d be paying her. Either zero or her paying wayfarer etc. As far as legal fees, Blake is an individual and these fees have to REALLY hurt. Justin has corporate backing and probably wayfarer has insurance too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Diddy is found not guilty it will mean he's a totally innocent man and all the charges were fabricated, right? He'll immediately be an A-lister again.

Who is diddy in this scenario? Blake?? lol

Yes, their deluded bots think they can just make up an evil hoax, get some technicality judicial wins, then settle for nothing behind closed doors during say the 4th of July, and go on and pretend nothing ever happened. Diddy could walk out of that courtroom and he will still be evil trash. Blake and Ryan will forever be known as evil scheming psychopaths.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP, taking notes on your considered thoughts on how reasonable Baldoni fans have been in this thread in talking about settlement a whole hour after you/someone just called me “brain damaged,” hang on.

Right. You’re a ‘victim’.

I’m no fragile flower and I hold my own here, but I do find it laughable when Baldoni supporters keep insisting how measured and reasonable they’ve been over the last several hundred pages when I’ve been right here. Lie all you want but don’t be shocked by the call outs.

(Remember the days before Lively supporters started insulting back? And the thread was a one way conduit of insults by Baldoni supporters? I think you miss those days.).

NP. I have only seen Lively supporters being immature.

ORLY? Have you read this page? This sort of insult salad by Baldoni supporters has been constant throughout.

I have followed, yes. The Lively posters seem hostile and aggressive