Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never posted on this thread, but here goes:

1. Fans are owed nothing. Let's not be like Korea, where they push their celebrities to suicide with their insane demands and social pressure.

2. I have no opinions on Blake Lively as an actress, but she has a right to a private life and to respectable working conditions. The two guys have been exposed as the orchestrators of a smear campaign against her, which is significantly more wrong than their initial boorish behavior on set. It's always the cover-up, not the initial crime, which trips up perpetrators! And yet they still do it...

Hello new person! I agree with you! I think a lot of people who support Lively feel the retaliation claim is really what ticks them off the most, because it's the kind of thing that probably has happened before to lots of women and we just haven't ever found out about it like we did here because of these texts.

Hi, I’m the new poster above. I think retaliation is bad, of course, but everything I’ve seen out there indicates the ‘retaliation’ wasn’t for any real SH, it was for Wayfarer and Justin to defend themselves and save the movie from all the drama Blake was causing. I have been SH at work and it was far more than what Blake alleged. And I wasn’t paid $3 million!

And sorry, but that whole thing with her bad mouthing him and excluding him from the red carpet of his own film…? Wow. She seems so mean! That’s what I keep hearing out there. She’s just not a nice person and very manipulative. Of course who knows but it is interesting to me that so many people say this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never posted on this thread, but here goes:

1. Fans are owed nothing. Let's not be like Korea, where they push their celebrities to suicide with their insane demands and social pressure.

2. I have no opinions on Blake Lively as an actress, but she has a right to a private life and to respectable working conditions. The two guys have been exposed as the orchestrators of a smear campaign against her, which is significantly more wrong than their initial boorish behavior on set. It's always the cover-up, not the initial crime, which trips up perpetrators! And yet they still do it...

I’m new here too!

I read the NYT piece and thought Baldoni must be a terrible guy. I didn’t really think much of Blake other than she was pretty and I’d heard she was high maintenance, but whatever. RR seemed nice, albeit I always heard rumors about Hugh Jackman. MYOB though, right?

But then I started seeing things about Justin and his side and ‘receipts’, and I was shocked at how much Blake had lied and twisted facts… and it really made me angry. As women, we need to work even harder to be credible and Blake really blew it for us. Totally blew it.

Are you really new? You seem more like a Baldoni supporter well conversant in all the lingo who has a conspiracy theory that the other person isn't really new. Which is mean, if true. If you're really new, though, welcome.

Wait, what conspiracy? Is there something new that happened?

[Anonymous]

Look. There was an actual new person in the thread. Sorry that they seemed to be taking Lively's side, but maybe you could woo them over. By doing stuff like the above, you make the thread seem crazy. Please stop, but whatevs, you do you. I'll leave you alone now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never posted on this thread, but here goes:

1. Fans are owed nothing. Let's not be like Korea, where they push their celebrities to suicide with their insane demands and social pressure.

2. I have no opinions on Blake Lively as an actress, but she has a right to a private life and to respectable working conditions. The two guys have been exposed as the orchestrators of a smear campaign against her, which is significantly more wrong than their initial boorish behavior on set. It's always the cover-up, not the initial crime, which trips up perpetrators! And yet they still do it...

This is great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never posted on this thread, but here goes:

1. Fans are owed nothing. Let's not be like Korea, where they push their celebrities to suicide with their insane demands and social pressure.

2. I have no opinions on Blake Lively as an actress, but she has a right to a private life and to respectable working conditions. The two guys have been exposed as the orchestrators of a smear campaign against her, which is significantly more wrong than their initial boorish behavior on set. It's always the cover-up, not the initial crime, which trips up perpetrators! And yet they still do it...

I’m new here too!

I read the NYT piece and thought Baldoni must be a terrible guy. I didn’t really think much of Blake other than she was pretty and I’d heard she was high maintenance, but whatever. RR seemed nice, albeit I always heard rumors about Hugh Jackman. MYOB though, right?

But then I started seeing things about Justin and his side and ‘receipts’, and I was shocked at how much Blake had lied and twisted facts… and it really made me angry. As women, we need to work even harder to be credible and Blake really blew it for us. Totally blew it.

Are you really new? You seem more like a Baldoni supporter well conversant in all the lingo who has a conspiracy theory that the other person isn't really new. Which is mean, if true. If you're really new, though, welcome.

Wait, what conspiracy? Is there something new that happened?

DP. You seem crazy by assuming there can only be one new poster!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Lively, I wouldn't touch It Starts With Us with a 10 foot pole, if that were an option. I guess leave that for Baldoni, if Hoover will work with him again, which I guess no will know until the conclusion of this lawsuit. If it's successful, it gives him more credibility.

Have a hard time seeing Sony help him distribute it, though, especially if he's going to be pulling Sony into this lawsuit through his contractual claims. Not sure what Baldoni's future as a director in Hollywood is going to be if he ropes Sony into this crazy lawsuit.

WF is working with Sony right now on Eleanor the Great.

Fair point, though I'm not sure WF is doing much on EtG beyond donating money (they were seated far away from the Sony people at Cannes and didn't seem to take any pics together), and if in two weeks Freedman is actually pulling Sony further into these contract claims by, say, adding Sony as third parties to the lawsuit or even maybe requiring depositions, or whatever, then I speculate what remaining relationship WF has with Sony could further deteriorate.

Actually it’s RR that Sony has been distancing from since his inappropriate behavior at the penthouse in front of Sony execs. They were supposed to distribute his new movie animal friends but now they’re not. I speculate that by dragging Sony into this frivolous lawsuit with false SH claims their relationship with Blake and Ryan will further deteriorate.

[Anonymous]

Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Lively, I wouldn't touch It Starts With Us with a 10 foot pole, if that were an option. I guess leave that for Baldoni, if Hoover will work with him again, which I guess no will know until the conclusion of this lawsuit. If it's successful, it gives him more credibility.

Have a hard time seeing Sony help him distribute it, though, especially if he's going to be pulling Sony into this lawsuit through his contractual claims. Not sure what Baldoni's future as a director in Hollywood is going to be if he ropes Sony into this crazy lawsuit.

WF is working with Sony right now on Eleanor the Great.

Fair point, though I'm not sure WF is doing much on EtG beyond donating money (they were seated far away from the Sony people at Cannes and didn't seem to take any pics together), and if in two weeks Freedman is actually pulling Sony further into these contract claims by, say, adding Sony as third parties to the lawsuit or even maybe requiring depositions, or whatever, then I speculate what remaining relationship WF has with Sony could further deteriorate.

Actually it’s RR that Sony has been distancing from since his inappropriate behavior at the penthouse in front of Sony execs. They were supposed to distribute his new movie animal friends but now they’re not. I speculate that by dragging Sony into this frivolous lawsuit with false SH claims their relationship with Blake and Ryan will further deteriorate.

The whole Sony thing is interesting to me because they are in a bad spot, they are the only major distributor that didn’t go into streaming. Ouch. Big blind spot that is costing them. That was one of the reasons that they partnered heavily with Ryan Reynolds, he’s a big power player, and so the speculation was that Blake got the part to appease him as they’re doing a bunch of projects together.

Interesting that they are distancing themselves, probably realizing another blind spot that they shouldn’t put all their eggs in that basket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow. Page 6 has some more snark

https://pagesix.com/2025/06/08/celebrity-news/entitled-blake-lively-blasted-for-horrible-behavior-on-shopping-outing/

So for those who didn’t click on it, this is kind of an interesting side piece of this whole thing. An Instagram influencer with about 200,000 followers was in a high-end shop in NYC at the same time as Blake, her niece, and maybe her sister. She said that Blake was really rude and said things to the staff like can I have some of these that other customers haven’t touched? She was ignoring her niece, and she asked for a private bathroom lol

The funny thing is if the influencer had just posted it it probably would’ve died down, but then she later came back and reported that it was taken down, so of course other outlets that repost this kind of thing picked it up. And it’s spread a bunch. if Blake‘s team had left it alone it probably would’ve just died out but then knowing that it was taken down people want to just spread it.

Blake then did the worst thing she could do which is totally substantiated. Her stories that day all of a sudden were her shopping at that place and saying that it was her happy place and what a wonderful time she was having, and then another one of her walking hand in hand and gushing about her niece, so basically she picked up on the two things of the story that she didn’t like and tried to re-create the narrative. But, it just stands out as desperate - she’s reading these things and responding to them.

In reality, she needs to just chill. I don’t know why she’s posting so much on social media, especially when she disabled her comments. It’s just weird. Just take the win Blake!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never posted on this thread, but here goes:

1. Fans are owed nothing. Let's not be like Korea, where they push their celebrities to suicide with their insane demands and social pressure.

2. I have no opinions on Blake Lively as an actress, but she has a right to a private life and to respectable working conditions. The two guys have been exposed as the orchestrators of a smear campaign against her, which is significantly more wrong than their initial boorish behavior on set. It's always the cover-up, not the initial crime, which trips up perpetrators! And yet they still do it...

I’m new here too!

I read the NYT piece and thought Baldoni must be a terrible guy. I didn’t really think much of Blake other than she was pretty and I’d heard she was high maintenance, but whatever. RR seemed nice, albeit I always heard rumors about Hugh Jackman. MYOB though, right?

But then I started seeing things about Justin and his side and ‘receipts’, and I was shocked at how much Blake had lied and twisted facts… and it really made me angry. As women, we need to work even harder to be credible and Blake really blew it for us. Totally blew it.

Exactly how I feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

This is excellent, thank you for putting it together.

Freedman looks very out of the loop on this -- no reply until Tuesday and then his response seems to have factual errors that will come back to bite him. Either he'll finally read the decision closely enough to understand they cannot replead everything he says he's going to, OR he'll replead it all and get bench slapped for violating the judge's order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

This is excellent, thank you for putting it together.

Freedman looks very out of the loop on this -- no reply until Tuesday and then his response seems to have factual errors that will come back to bite him. Either he'll finally read the decision closely enough to understand they cannot replead everything he says he's going to, OR he'll replead it all and get bench slapped for violating the judge's order.

Didn’t Baldoni’s legal team just hire that lawyer from Taylor’s law firm? What’s her role going to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I’m a Baldoni supporter and I think Esra’s understanding of the emotional distress ruling is correct - no evidence of any kind premised on medical experts or records, but she can testify herself. Not actually sure about other witnesses.

I think the order regarding the internal investigation can be satisfied by completing the privilege log.

The Wallace ruling is similar to the Jones one earlier in the case.

I agree with you re the emotional distress letter.

I think the priv issues on the investigation will be a little more involved. Hudson’s earlier reply specifies that the investigator already produced a bulk priv log by type of doc but not by individual doc, which they deem insufficient to judge priv doc by doc. At the same time, Wayfarer said none of the docs were within its control, though the judge’s letter is saying that a client is deemed to possess the docs from an investigation since it can demand they be turned over to them.

So I think Wayfarer may be required to obtain these investigation docs from the investigator and make a determination on whether they are really priv or not, and do a better log/turn over the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

This is excellent, thank you for putting it together.

Freedman looks very out of the loop on this -- no reply until Tuesday and then his response seems to have factual errors that will come back to bite him. Either he'll finally read the decision closely enough to understand they cannot replead everything he says he's going to, OR he'll replead it all and get bench slapped for violating the judge's order.

Thanks! And also, if they file all 4 claims in the amended complaint, Freedman will have spent his small and overworked team’s time on a project where half of it will have been a waste.

[Anonymous]

It’s like he doesn’t read the footnotes! The footnotes are sometimes the most important parts!