Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!

I’m saying she may recover many of her attorneys fees spent so far through 47.1, and that the treble and punitive damages provisions in that statute, to be paid by Baldoni if the judge so determines, could potentially also in effect subsidize the rest of the litigation.

Seems unlikely because the judge sidestepped 47.1 in his ruling. If they submit a motion for fees citing 47.1 and the judge grants it, WF will appeal and we’ll hopefully get the Supreme Court showdown we’ve all been waiting for anyway.

Judge Liman invited Lively to debrief the fees issue under 47.1. That doesn’t read “unlikely” to me, that telegraphs that he didn’t want to hold up the decision for it but contemplates that fee awards etc may be granted here.

[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:

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. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!

I’m saying she may recover many of her attorneys fees spent so far through 47.1, and that the treble and punitive damages provisions in that statute, to be paid by Eason foBaldoni if the judge so determines, could potentially also in effect subsidize the rest of the litigation.

plea,
Seems unlikely because the judge sidestepped 47.1 in his ruling. If they submit a motion for fees citing 47.1 and the judge grants it, WF will appeal and we’ll hopefully get the Supreme Court showdown we’ve all been waiting for anyway.

Judge Liman invited Lively to debrief the fees issue under 47.1. That doesn’t read “unlikely” to me, that telegraphs that he didn’t want to hold up the decision for it but contemplates that fee awards etc may be granted here.

If so, more for Baldoni to appeal the defamation dismissals.

[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:

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. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!

I’m saying she may recover many of her attorneys fees spent so far through 47.1, and that the treble and punitive damages provisions in that statute, to be paid by Eason foBaldoni if the judge so determines, could potentially also in effect subsidize the rest of the litigation.

plea,
Seems unlikely because the judge sidestepped 47.1 in his ruling. If they submit a motion for fees citing 47.1 and the judge grants it, WF will appeal and we’ll hopefully get the Supreme Court showdown we’ve all been waiting for anyway.

Judge Liman invited Lively to debrief the fees issue under 47.1. That doesn’t read “unlikely” to me, that telegraphs that he didn’t want to hold up the decision for it but contemplates that fee awards etc may be granted here.

If so, more for Baldoni to appeal the defamation dismissals.

More reason for Baldoni to appeal

[Anonymous]

Everything is a win for Baldoni, always. The more he loses, the more he can appeal. Lively should just settle now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a win for Baldoni, always. The more he loses, the more he can appeal. Lively should just settle now.

Wayfarer will have long since dissolved, Sarowitz will have fled to Thailand for the tax breaks, and Baldoni will be bankrupt and living in a trailer park in Minnesota, but his rabid fans on this board will still be saying that the appeal will eventually come through and Justin will someday get his $400 million. (Don't come at me, settlement lady.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a win for Baldoni, always. The more he loses, the more he can appeal. Lively should just settle now.

Wayfarer will have long since dissolved, Sarowitz will have fled to Thailand for the tax breaks, and Baldoni will be bankrupt and living in a trailer park in Minnesota, but his rabid fans on this board will still be saying that the appeal will eventually come through and Justin will someday get his $400 million. (Don't come at me, settlement lady.)

This poster is why people don’t like so many lively supporters

[Anonymous]

And the hits just keep coming:

Liman denies Jed Wallace's requested stay on discovery: Burden on him is light (he will need to produce docs etc wherever jurisdiction is ultimately found) but prejudice to Lively would be significant given upcoming depositions etc. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635145/gov.uscourts.nysd.635145.309.0.pdf

On Lively's motion to compel all the documents regarding Wayfarer's internal investigation of Lively's complaints about Baldoni and the Wayfarer production etc, Liman says that Wayfarer protests production of the docs saying that it doesn't have possession, and says that that is not correct because parties are presumed to have control of documents possessed by their counsel and also because there at at least a minimum of documents that Wayfarer would possess, such as engagement letters, etc. Liman requires Wayfarer to show cause by Thursday by 5pm (2 days) why it should not be required to produce all related documents, including those over which it says are privileged. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.310.0.pdf

Not a hit, but a recent filing: Esra Hudson also files a letter asking for clarification on what evidence of emotional distress Lively will be allowed to produce for remaining claims if she agrees to dismiss her specific counts for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims with prejudice. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.308.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Justin will be fine. We are always more forgiving of men and I think people understand he’s not a sexual predator despite what Ryan Reynolds said and probably just acted weird to an insufferable Blake. Even people reading cursory headlines understand that this is a workplace dispute and even if they believe Blake, he’s gained half a million Instagram followers since the lawsuit. I don’t see Justin being canceled given his role behind the scenes and wayfarer’s ability to pump out good quality work that gets Oscar buzz.

It is insane how delusional some of the posters are about Blake, but I can’t take them seriously and I think they are just posting for giggles. Now that I know more about the background of her lifestyle brand, I realize it was always a grift with her. I don’t think she was ever popular with the public. She landed gossip girl but since then she’s just been sort of forced upon us, either through Ryan Reynolds or through self funding her dumb companies that keep failing.

I thought that back in 2015 when she was still mildly popular , someone saw potential in Blake like they did Gwyneth Paltrow and they were willing to invest in her and surround her with really good people for her lifestyle brand preserve. But the article that was just published about what a mess that company was, it was literally run out of her alcoholic brother’s apartment, he’ sexually harassed and had affairs with a few young girls who were unfortunate enough to work there. There was no business plan, there were no backers, it was just a really slapped together, poorly run company, that ran itself into the ground in a year.

Her drinks line and her hairline is the same. And first sign of trouble people are bailing. Target is out and won’t be restocking her lines. She’s SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justin will be fine. We are always more forgiving of men and I think people understand he’s not a sexual predator despite what Ryan Reynolds said and probably just acted weird to an insufferable Blake. Even people reading cursory headlines understand that this is a workplace dispute and even if they believe Blake, he’s gained half a million Instagram followers since the lawsuit. I don’t see Justin being canceled given his role behind the scenes and wayfarer’s ability to pump out good quality work that gets Oscar buzz.

It is insane how delusional some of the posters are about Blake, but I can’t take them seriously and I think they are just posting for giggles. Now that I know more about the background of her lifestyle brand, I realize it was always a grift with her. I don’t think she was ever popular with the public. She landed gossip girl but since then she’s just been sort of forced upon us, either through Ryan Reynolds or through self funding her dumb companies that keep failing.

I thought that back in 2015 when she was still mildly popular , someone saw potential in Blake like they did Gwyneth Paltrow and they were willing to invest in her and surround her with really good people for her lifestyle brand preserve. But the article that was just published about what a mess that company was, it was literally run out of her alcoholic brother’s apartment, he’ sexually harassed and had affairs with a few young girls who were unfortunate enough to work there. There was no business plan, there were no backers, it was just a really slapped together, poorly run company, that ran itself into the ground in a year.

Her drinks line and her hairline is the same. And first sign of trouble people are bailing. Target is out and won’t be restocking her lines. She’s SOL.

I agree with all of this. I also think Blake was and is likely mentally struggling on some level, and that’s part of what fueled this. Other than marrying well and GG, she’s never been successful at anything other than being beautiful, and she runs in circles with people who are incredibly talented. It must make her very insecure as I’m sure she’s aware her beauty is fading. IME beautiful women like her often get crazy when they start to age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a win for Baldoni, always. The more he loses, the more he can appeal. Lively should just settle now.

Wayfarer will have long since dissolved, Sarowitz will have fled to Thailand for the tax breaks, and Baldoni will be bankrupt and living in a trailer park in Minnesota, but his rabid fans on this board will still be saying that the appeal will eventually come through and Justin will someday get his $400 million. (Don't come at me, settlement lady.)

This poster is why people don’t like so many lively supporters

Join the real world and adjust your expectations of what Baldoni will receive in damages from this trial to the real time feedback that the judge is doling out. PPs on last several pages are still saying Baldoni shouldn't pay Lively anything to settle; he shouldn't ever pay her anything; he should add new claims to his amended complaint; chance of her getting fees/treble damages through 47.1 is nil; none of this hurts Sarowitz because insurance must be paying everything, etc.

Accept what we have been telling you for some time re the risks of these very badly written claims being dismissed with prejudice. Baldoni is not coming out of this with millions of dollars from Lively. If Freedman sold him on that originally, his mouth wrote claims that his drafting skills could not cash. Embrace the reality of the defensive posture that Baldoni now holds in this case. He would be lucky to settle here. His high dollar claims have been dismissed, so stop fantasizing that there is no chance he will pay her anything. What there actually is really very little chance of now is that she will ever pay him anything now. Accept that and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a win for Baldoni, always. The more he loses, the more he can appeal. Lively should just settle now.

Wayfarer will have long since dissolved, Sarowitz will have fled to Thailand for the tax breaks, and Baldoni will be bankrupt and living in a trailer park in Minnesota, but his rabid fans on this board will still be saying that the appeal will eventually come through and Justin will someday get his $400 million. (Don't come at me, settlement lady.)

This poster is why people don’t like so many lively supporters

Join the real world and adjust your expectations of what Baldoni will receive in damages from this trial to the real time feedback that the judge is doling out. PPs on last several pages are still saying Baldoni shouldn't pay Lively anything to settle; he shouldn't ever pay her anything; he should add new claims to his amended complaint; chance of her getting fees/treble damages through 47.1 is nil; none of this hurts Sarowitz because insurance must be paying everything, etc.

Accept what we have been telling you for some time re the risks of these very badly written claims being dismissed with prejudice. Baldoni is not coming out of this with millions of dollars from Lively. If Freedman sold him on that originally, his mouth wrote claims that his drafting skills could not cash. Embrace the reality of the defensive posture that Baldoni now holds in this case. He would be lucky to settle here. His high dollar claims have been dismissed, so stop fantasizing that there is no chance he will pay her anything. What there actually is really very little chance of now is that she will ever pay him anything now. Accept that and move on.

Again, this is why no one likes lively people. So angry and weirdly hostile to people you don’t know. You’re constantly ranting about Freedman. Why? Who cares? And you’re also out of touch. Baldoni is fighting back and in that he’s done an amazing job. Lively has spent millions and only tanked her reputation even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justin will be fine. We are always more forgiving of men and I think people understand he’s not a sexual predator despite what Ryan Reynolds said and probably just acted weird to an insufferable Blake. Even people reading cursory headlines understand that this is a workplace dispute and even if they believe Blake, he’s gained half a million Instagram followers since the lawsuit. I don’t see Justin being canceled given his role behind the scenes and wayfarer’s ability to pump out good quality work that gets Oscar buzz.

It is insane how delusional some of the posters are about Blake, but I can’t take them seriously and I think they are just posting for giggles. Now that I know more about the background of her lifestyle brand, I realize it was always a grift with her. I don’t think she was ever popular with the public. She landed gossip girl but since then she’s just been sort of forced upon us, either through Ryan Reynolds or through self funding her dumb companies that keep failing.

I thought that back in 2015 when she was still mildly popular , someone saw potential in Blake like they did Gwyneth Paltrow and they were willing to invest in her and surround her with really good people for her lifestyle brand preserve. But the article that was just published about what a mess that company was, it was literally run out of her alcoholic brother’s apartment, he’ sexually harassed and had affairs with a few young girls who were unfortunate enough to work there. There was no business plan, there were no backers, it was just a really slapped together, poorly run company, that ran itself into the ground in a year.

Her drinks line and her hairline is the same. And first sign of trouble people are bailing. Target is out and won’t be restocking her lines. She’s SOL.

I agree with all of this. I also think Blake was and is likely mentally struggling on some level, and that’s part of what fueled this. Other than marrying well and GG, she’s never been successful at anything other than being beautiful, and she runs in circles with people who are incredibly talented. It must make her very insecure as I’m sure she’s aware her beauty is fading. IME beautiful women like her often get crazy when they start to age.

I don't follow her and don't buy brands like this and wouldn't buy hers. But isn't she raising these products in her lawsuit because she is tying the brand failure to the smear campaign? I'm not sure she is really using the money for these products to live on in her daily life. I think they have plenty otherwise through all the Marvel money etc? Didn't she get paid $3M to be in IEWU? I don't think she really needs them to survive, in the same way that I thought Baldoni needed a job going forward. (Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he can just live in Hawaii off his $50M from IEWU and be done with it all.)

Not sure if you guys can hear yourselves when you say stuff like "she's never been successful at anything other than being beautiful" and your digs at her "fading" beauty leading to craziness or talk about her "grift," but those are actually fairly sh!tty things to say about someone. Something she's being fairly successful at right now is weathering through the pain cave of the last several months and now coming out the other end to run Freedman into the ground with this lawsuit, for example. I think she is actually doing that pretty well tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a win for Baldoni, always. The more he loses, the more he can appeal. Lively should just settle now.

Wayfarer will have long since dissolved, Sarowitz will have fled to Thailand for the tax breaks, and Baldoni will be bankrupt and living in a trailer park in Minnesota, but his rabid fans on this board will still be saying that the appeal will eventually come through and Justin will someday get his $400 million. (Don't come at me, settlement lady.)

This poster is why people don’t like so many lively supporters

Join the real world and adjust your expectations of what Baldoni will receive in damages from this trial to the real time feedback that the judge is doling out. PPs on last several pages are still saying Baldoni shouldn't pay Lively anything to settle; he shouldn't ever pay her anything; he should add new claims to his amended complaint; chance of her getting fees/treble damages through 47.1 is nil; none of this hurts Sarowitz because insurance must be paying everything, etc.

Accept what we have been telling you for some time re the risks of these very badly written claims being dismissed with prejudice. Baldoni is not coming out of this with millions of dollars from Lively. If Freedman sold him on that originally, his mouth wrote claims that his drafting skills could not cash. Embrace the reality of the defensive posture that Baldoni now holds in this case. He would be lucky to settle here. His high dollar claims have been dismissed, so stop fantasizing that there is no chance he will pay her anything. What there actually is really very little chance of now is that she will ever pay him anything now. Accept that and move on.

Again, this is why no one likes lively people. So angry and weirdly hostile to people you don’t know. You’re constantly ranting about Freedman. Why? Who cares? And you’re also out of touch. Baldoni is fighting back and in that he’s done an amazing job. Lively has spent millions and only tanked her reputation even more.

We just see the case differently, I guess, and have for some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justin will be fine. We are always more forgiving of men and I think people understand he’s not a sexual predator despite what Ryan Reynolds said and probably just acted weird to an insufferable Blake. Even people reading cursory headlines understand that this is a workplace dispute and even if they believe Blake, he’s gained half a million Instagram followers since the lawsuit. I don’t see Justin being canceled given his role behind the scenes and wayfarer’s ability to pump out good quality work that gets Oscar buzz.

It is insane how delusional some of the posters are about Blake, but I can’t take them seriously and I think they are just posting for giggles. Now that I know more about the background of her lifestyle brand, I realize it was always a grift with her. I don’t think she was ever popular with the public. She landed gossip girl but since then she’s just been sort of forced upon us, either through Ryan Reynolds or through self funding her dumb companies that keep failing.

I thought that back in 2015 when she was still mildly popular , someone saw potential in Blake like they did Gwyneth Paltrow and they were willing to invest in her and surround her with really good people for her lifestyle brand preserve. But the article that was just published about what a mess that company was, it was literally run out of her alcoholic brother’s apartment, he’ sexually harassed and had affairs with a few young girls who were unfortunate enough to work there. There was no business plan, there were no backers, it was just a really slapped together, poorly run company, that ran itself into the ground in a year.

Her drinks line and her hairline is the same. And first sign of trouble people are bailing. Target is out and won’t be restocking her lines. She’s SOL.

I agree with all of this. I also think Blake was and is likely mentally struggling on some level, and that’s part of what fueled this. Other than marrying well and GG, she’s never been successful at anything other than being beautiful, and she runs in circles with people who are incredibly talented. It must make her very insecure as I’m sure she’s aware her beauty is fading. IME beautiful women like her often get crazy when they start to age.

I don't follow her and don't buy brands like this and wouldn't buy hers. But isn't she raising these products in her lawsuit because she is tying the brand failure to the smear campaign? I'm not sure she is really using the money for these products to live on in her daily life. I think they have plenty otherwise through all the Marvel money etc? Didn't she get paid $3M to be in IEWU? I don't think she really needs them to survive, in the same way that I thought Baldoni needed a job going forward. (Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he can just live in Hawaii off his $50M from IEWU and be done with it all.)

Not sure if you guys can hear yourselves when you say stuff like "she's never been successful at anything other than being beautiful" and your digs at her "fading" beauty leading to craziness or talk about her "grift," but those are actually fairly sh!tty things to say about someone. Something she's being fairly successful at right now is weathering through the pain cave of the last several months and now coming out the other end to run Freedman into the ground with this lawsuit, for example. I think she is actually doing that pretty well tbh.

Pretty well for someone who was “dumped” by all her best friends in the last month. But at least she has Salma now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justin will be fine. We are always more forgiving of men and I think people understand he’s not a sexual predator despite what Ryan Reynolds said and probably just acted weird to an insufferable Blake. Even people reading cursory headlines understand that this is a workplace dispute and even if they believe Blake, he’s gained half a million Instagram followers since the lawsuit. I don’t see Justin being canceled given his role behind the scenes and wayfarer’s ability to pump out good quality work that gets Oscar buzz.

It is insane how delusional some of the posters are about Blake, but I can’t take them seriously and I think they are just posting for giggles. Now that I know more about the background of her lifestyle brand, I realize it was always a grift with her. I don’t think she was ever popular with the public. She landed gossip girl but since then she’s just been sort of forced upon us, either through Ryan Reynolds or through self funding her dumb companies that keep failing.

I thought that back in 2015 when she was still mildly popular , someone saw potential in Blake like they did Gwyneth Paltrow and they were willing to invest in her and surround her with really good people for her lifestyle brand preserve. But the article that was just published about what a mess that company was, it was literally run out of her alcoholic brother’s apartment, he’ sexually harassed and had affairs with a few young girls who were unfortunate enough to work there. There was no business plan, there were no backers, it was just a really slapped together, poorly run company, that ran itself into the ground in a year.

Her drinks line and her hairline is the same. And first sign of trouble people are bailing. Target is out and won’t be restocking her lines. She’s SOL.

I agree with all of this. I also think Blake was and is likely mentally struggling on some level, and that’s part of what fueled this. Other than marrying well and GG, she’s never been successful at anything other than being beautiful, and she runs in circles with people who are incredibly talented. It must make her very insecure as I’m sure she’s aware her beauty is fading. IME beautiful women like her often get crazy when they start to age.

I don't follow her and don't buy brands like this and wouldn't buy hers. But isn't she raising these products in her lawsuit because she is tying the brand failure to the smear campaign? I'm not sure she is really using the money for these products to live on in her daily life. I think they have plenty otherwise through all the Marvel money etc? Didn't she get paid $3M to be in IEWU? I don't think she really needs them to survive, in the same way that I thought Baldoni needed a job going forward. (Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he can just live in Hawaii off his $50M from IEWU and be done with it all.)

Not sure if you guys can hear yourselves when you say stuff like "she's never been successful at anything other than being beautiful" and your digs at her "fading" beauty leading to craziness or talk about her "grift," but those are actually fairly sh!tty things to say about someone. Something she's being fairly successful at right now is weathering through the pain cave of the last several months and now coming out the other end to run Freedman into the ground with this lawsuit, for example. I think she is actually doing that pretty well tbh.

Pretty well for someone who was “dumped” by all her best friends in the last month. But at least she has Salma now.

☠️