And Judge Liman has now issued a ruling that he agrees with Lively’s interpretation re emotional distress, and she can still claim regular emotional distress damages. So Lively will likely dismiss these two claims with prejudice.
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.
Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!
DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.
Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).
As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.
I can see taking more than 4 hours to respond because it’s a longer decision.
But if, as you say, you need to “gather your thoughts,” that extra time should really ensure that your lead attorney does not then turn around and get the claims you are refiling wrong. You would not see Manatt or Willkie making this stupid mistake tbh. You don’t overstate what you’re going to come back fighting on, either to your client (who Freedman should have consulted with before going public on TMZ lol) or to the public.
This just emphasizes to me how Freedman is absolutely obsessed with PR to the point where him being on TV is more important than what he is actually saying. Wtf is wrong with this dude? He took a whole day and didn’t figure out his remaining claims properly, which I did in 20 minutes? Remember Succession? This is sh!t show at the clown factory stuff.
I don’t think anyone really cares about the details, just the overall message.
Do you know these lawyers personally? Are you a lawyer? I’ve heard of freedman because he represents famous clients, but I would never normally see the names of lawyers in PR statements and I think 99.99 percent of people don’t know or care either way. My colleagues and I laugh bc when one of our cases makes it in the news, it’s so very rare to see lawyer names mentioned. People don’t notice or care. But you seem to.
It seems very personal to you.
I am a lawyer (I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to figure the claim tracing I did above out, except maybe a very good paralegal) and while my firm never goes on TMZ, we do get quoted in news articles, especially legal pubs. If we made a mistake like this about the remaining claims we had in a lawsuit in one of those, it would mean an immediate client call to do damage control. Whoever’s mistake it was would get reprimanded. People woukd “care about the details” lolol.
But Freedman is in charge of this sh!t show so maybe when he makes mistakes — like this or like not ever filing an amended complaint so that nearly all of Baldoni’s claims get dismissed *poof* — maybe the client doesn’t know how to reprimand him. Since he handled the PR so brilliantly! But on the legal part of being a lawyer, he is sucking pretty hard, turns out.
Well, I’m not entirely sure it was a mistake but in any event, the crisis PR I worked with would never suggest going out with some other statement like you’re suggesting. ‘Oh we said we’d re file 4 claims, but we actually meant 3’. It’s really silly to think anyone would care. It’s not like PR statements are written guarantees!
He should definitely say that. That would be wrong, also, so very on brand for him. He only has 2 remaining claims.
He’s not wrong. There are four claims that fall under the rubric of the two causes of actions the judge said he could replead. It’s just a difference in semantics.
lol no! Nice try! He went on tv to say he has 4 claims remaking and will include in his amended complaint, and specifically named two of those four claims as (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Which is a problem because the judge specifically told him in the order that those claims are dismissed with prejudice and he cannot refile.
Keep up.
You are incorrect (and extremely rude, as usual). Anyway, this lawyer went through the comparing and there are indeed four., but so closely related in nature, that it is two causes of action. You can watch, if you liike, but the don’t want to waste my time typing it all out for you. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MwAhm2/
I can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.
He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.
Also TikTok works on phones, feel free to join the rest of us in modern society at any time.
Not when you don’t have the app.
Anyway, Freedman names the specific claims on TMZ — he has them written down. Does TikTok lady think he can still raise claims for intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations? Because those were dismissed with prejudice, and he can’t. Except he says he will.
Anonymous wrote:And Judge Liman has now issued a ruling that he agrees with Lively’s interpretation re emotional distress, and she can still claim regular emotional distress damages. So Lively will likely dismiss these two claims with prejudice.
Good luck to her getting anything of consequence with no medical evidence.
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.
Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!
DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.
Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).
As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.
I can see taking more than 4 hours to respond because it’s a longer decision.
But if, as you say, you need to “gather your thoughts,” that extra time should really ensure that your lead attorney does not then turn around and get the claims you are refiling wrong. You would not see Manatt or Willkie making this stupid mistake tbh. You don’t overstate what you’re going to come back fighting on, either to your client (who Freedman should have consulted with before going public on TMZ lol) or to the public.
This just emphasizes to me how Freedman is absolutely obsessed with PR to the point where him being on TV is more important than what he is actually saying. Wtf is wrong with this dude? He took a whole day and didn’t figure out his remaining claims properly, which I did in 20 minutes? Remember Succession? This is sh!t show at the clown factory stuff.
I don’t think anyone really cares about the details, just the overall message.
Do you know these lawyers personally? Are you a lawyer? I’ve heard of freedman because he represents famous clients, but I would never normally see the names of lawyers in PR statements and I think 99.99 percent of people don’t know or care either way. My colleagues and I laugh bc when one of our cases makes it in the news, it’s so very rare to see lawyer names mentioned. People don’t notice or care. But you seem to.
It seems very personal to you.
I am a lawyer (I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to figure the claim tracing I did above out, except maybe a very good paralegal) and while my firm never goes on TMZ, we do get quoted in news articles, especially legal pubs. If we made a mistake like this about the remaining claims we had in a lawsuit in one of those, it would mean an immediate client call to do damage control. Whoever’s mistake it was would get reprimanded. People woukd “care about the details” lolol.
But Freedman is in charge of this sh!t show so maybe when he makes mistakes — like this or like not ever filing an amended complaint so that nearly all of Baldoni’s claims get dismissed *poof* — maybe the client doesn’t know how to reprimand him. Since he handled the PR so brilliantly! But on the legal part of being a lawyer, he is sucking pretty hard, turns out.
Well, I’m not entirely sure it was a mistake but in any event, the crisis PR I worked with would never suggest going out with some other statement like you’re suggesting. ‘Oh we said we’d re file 4 claims, but we actually meant 3’. It’s really silly to think anyone would care. It’s not like PR statements are written guarantees!
He should definitely say that. That would be wrong, also, so very on brand for him. He only has 2 remaining claims.
He’s not wrong. There are four claims that fall under the rubric of the two causes of actions the judge said he could replead. It’s just a difference in semantics.
lol no! Nice try! He went on tv to say he has 4 claims remaking and will include in his amended complaint, and specifically named two of those four claims as (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Which is a problem because the judge specifically told him in the order that those claims are dismissed with prejudice and he cannot refile.
Keep up.
You are incorrect (and extremely rude, as usual). Anyway, this lawyer went through the comparing and there are indeed four., but so closely related in nature, that it is two causes of action. You can watch, if you liike, but the don’t want to waste my time typing it all out for you. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MwAhm2/
I can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.
He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.
Also TikTok works on phones, feel free to join the rest of us in modern society at any time.
Not when you don’t have the app.
Anyway, Freedman names the specific claims on TMZ — he has them written down. Does TikTok lady think he can still raise claims for intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations? Because those were dismissed with prejudice, and he can’t. Except he says he will.
Lady watch the TikTok or shut up. If you were a lawyer, you would know that lawyers always plead closely related causes of action where perhaps one element is slightly different as alternative claims. So too here. Four claims, essentially two causes of action.
Anonymous wrote:When he went on TMZ, he had the 4 claims he was going to amend written down in a notebook lol! He wasn't pulling it from nowhere; he planned those 4 claims, and two of them are claims the judge specifically told him not to replead.
He also had to consult his notebook to remember Jen Abel's name and her firm. Does he even know who he's representing here? If I were her I might be wondering about another lawyer.
I've seen murmurs on Reddit about how active Freedman's current caseload is and that he has several other cases in very critical stages of litigation (I know one is the FKA Twigs trial, and he's representing Vin Diesel in that harassment case that just came up). Freedman's handled plenty of high profile cases before but, like, insider LA high profile. Not this. I bet he's drowning in work right now and his firm is not large and he doesn't have a true #2 on this case, someone whose profile is close to as high as his who can speak authoritatively to the press or handle major issues as they arise. Gottlieb has Esra Hudson, but Freedman's NY counsel is much lower profile and Ellyn Garafolo is a trial specialist who usually doesn't handle this aspect of the case (and has her own full schedule).
That’s curious that you track a lawyer’s schedule. How do you know ellyn G’s schedule? She’s not well known outside that world.
Have you been up against Freedman before and lost? I’m puzzled by the obsession with him. I sometimes feel testy with opposing counsel during litigations but it’s not uncommon for lawyers to meet for drinks after all is said and done :)
Where did I say I track EG's schedule? I just said I know it's "full" which is not hard to know. Do you know a lot of partners at litigation boutiques with a lot of high profile clients who have quiet, mild schedules?
DP. How do you know a random lawyers schedule is full? That shows a level of stalking…
Anonymous wrote:Something tangentially related to this case that I'm curious about: I wonder if the most militant, believe-all-women feminists are only children? Because based on my brothers' experiences in the workplace and my own, we know how underhanded and passive aggressive women can be. Men can ALSO be underhanded and passive aggressive, obviously. I'm not saying women are worse colleagues or bosses. I'm just they can be just *as* flawed, as all human beings are, and I'm over this idea that women are perfect and make perfect colleagues and would never ever lie compared to the sex pest men who frequent the workplace.
I was sexually harassed *by a woman* at work, and I currently support Lively in this action. Of course women can be flawed.
Anonymous wrote:When he went on TMZ, he had the 4 claims he was going to amend written down in a notebook lol! He wasn't pulling it from nowhere; he planned those 4 claims, and two of them are claims the judge specifically told him not to replead.
He also had to consult his notebook to remember Jen Abel's name and her firm. Does he even know who he's representing here? If I were her I might be wondering about another lawyer.
I've seen murmurs on Reddit about how active Freedman's current caseload is and that he has several other cases in very critical stages of litigation (I know one is the FKA Twigs trial, and he's representing Vin Diesel in that harassment case that just came up). Freedman's handled plenty of high profile cases before but, like, insider LA high profile. Not this. I bet he's drowning in work right now and his firm is not large and he doesn't have a true #2 on this case, someone whose profile is close to as high as his who can speak authoritatively to the press or handle major issues as they arise. Gottlieb has Esra Hudson, but Freedman's NY counsel is much lower profile and Ellyn Garafolo is a trial specialist who usually doesn't handle this aspect of the case (and has her own full schedule).
That’s curious that you track a lawyer’s schedule. How do you know ellyn G’s schedule? She’s not well known outside that world.
Have you been up against Freedman before and lost? I’m puzzled by the obsession with him. I sometimes feel testy with opposing counsel during litigations but it’s not uncommon for lawyers to meet for drinks after all is said and done :)
Where did I say I track EG's schedule? I just said I know it's "full" which is not hard to know. Do you know a lot of partners at litigation boutiques with a lot of high profile clients who have quiet, mild schedules?
DP. How do you know a random lawyers schedule is full? That shows a level of stalking…
How do I know a partner at a small litigation boutique with a roster of high profile clients has a full schedule? Are you really asking this? You don't have to stalk someone to know this. I'm sure EG has a full schedule, never having looked at her schedule or even knowing who her clients beyond Baldoni are at the moment. I'm sure she's very busy.
Anonymous wrote:And Judge Liman has now issued a ruling that he agrees with Lively’s interpretation re emotional distress, and she can still claim regular emotional distress damages. So Lively will likely dismiss these two claims with prejudice.
Good luck to her getting anything of consequence with no medical evidence.
People are awarded damages for emotional distress with no medical evidence all the time. If Lively wins her claims for harassment and retaliation, she will almost certainly receive damages for emotional distress.
Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?
Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.
To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.
What if the accusations aren't false?
If the accusations aren’t false, and he has found guilty than he should not be able to sue.
But he still has is day in court right? We haven’t concluded that he sexually harassed and retaliated right? Or does he not even deserve a trial. Because Blake is pretty and she married a famous guy who makes us laugh when he dresses in a funny costume.
Just trying to understand modern feminism!
This isn’t a criminal trial. He won’t be found guilty. He’ll just be held liable for damages, if the jury finds him responsible for harassment or a smear campaign. And, yes, unless the parties settle (which Baldoni supporters keep urging), it will go to trial and he can defend his good name etc. As it should be. No problem from me.
His $400M defamation and extortion claims, though, have now been flatly tossed out by the judge as having insufficient facts to support them or being otherwise insufficiently pled. That’s on Freedman. Moreover, the clear insufficiency of the defamation suit — a claim that harassers will often file against their accusers to shut them up and make them settle — and the way that Liman was able to kick it out on a MTD — also says something to me. He filed a $400 million countersuit, including huge defamation claims abusers often file — and now those defamation claims got tossed out. So as PP said, maybe it was all just a tactic from the beginning, and maybe Baldoni shouldn’t be able to do that. Or should have to pay extra for having engaged in those oppressive tactics.
My question is, if he is found not guilty, does he have any recourse for Blake dragging him through this for two years. It would be one thing if this was a normal person who had to defend himself against sexual harassment allegations. But she went to the New York Times. Just wondering if he would have any recourse at that point.
I’m not one of the lawyers on this thread, so I don’t have a clear understanding of what went down this week in terms of implications for future.
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.
Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!
DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.
Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).
As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.
I can see taking more than 4 hours to respond because it’s a longer decision.
But if, as you say, you need to “gather your thoughts,” that extra time should really ensure that your lead attorney does not then turn around and get the claims you are refiling wrong. You would not see Manatt or Willkie making this stupid mistake tbh. You don’t overstate what you’re going to come back fighting on, either to your client (who Freedman should have consulted with before going public on TMZ lol) or to the public.
This just emphasizes to me how Freedman is absolutely obsessed with PR to the point where him being on TV is more important than what he is actually saying. Wtf is wrong with this dude? He took a whole day and didn’t figure out his remaining claims properly, which I did in 20 minutes? Remember Succession? This is sh!t show at the clown factory stuff.
I don’t think anyone really cares about the details, just the overall message.
Do you know these lawyers personally? Are you a lawyer? I’ve heard of freedman because he represents famous clients, but I would never normally see the names of lawyers in PR statements and I think 99.99 percent of people don’t know or care either way. My colleagues and I laugh bc when one of our cases makes it in the news, it’s so very rare to see lawyer names mentioned. People don’t notice or care. But you seem to.
It seems very personal to you.
I am a lawyer (I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to figure the claim tracing I did above out, except maybe a very good paralegal) and while my firm never goes on TMZ, we do get quoted in news articles, especially legal pubs. If we made a mistake like this about the remaining claims we had in a lawsuit in one of those, it would mean an immediate client call to do damage control. Whoever’s mistake it was would get reprimanded. People woukd “care about the details” lolol.
But Freedman is in charge of this sh!t show so maybe when he makes mistakes — like this or like not ever filing an amended complaint so that nearly all of Baldoni’s claims get dismissed *poof* — maybe the client doesn’t know how to reprimand him. Since he handled the PR so brilliantly! But on the legal part of being a lawyer, he is sucking pretty hard, turns out.
Well, I’m not entirely sure it was a mistake but in any event, the crisis PR I worked with would never suggest going out with some other statement like you’re suggesting. ‘Oh we said we’d re file 4 claims, but we actually meant 3’. It’s really silly to think anyone would care. It’s not like PR statements are written guarantees!
He should definitely say that. That would be wrong, also, so very on brand for him. He only has 2 remaining claims.
He’s not wrong. There are four claims that fall under the rubric of the two causes of actions the judge said he could replead. It’s just a difference in semantics.
lol no! Nice try! He went on tv to say he has 4 claims remaking and will include in his amended complaint, and specifically named two of those four claims as (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Which is a problem because the judge specifically told him in the order that those claims are dismissed with prejudice and he cannot refile.
Keep up.
You are incorrect (and extremely rude, as usual). Anyway, this lawyer went through the comparing and there are indeed four., but so closely related in nature, that it is two causes of action. You can watch, if you liike, but the don’t want to waste my time typing it all out for you. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MwAhm2/
I can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.
He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.
Also TikTok works on phones, feel free to join the rest of us in modern society at any time.
Not when you don’t have the app.
Anyway, Freedman names the specific claims on TMZ — he has them written down. Does TikTok lady think he can still raise claims for intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations? Because those were dismissed with prejudice, and he can’t. Except he says he will.
Lady watch the TikTok or shut up. If you were a lawyer, you would know that lawyers always plead closely related causes of action where perhaps one element is slightly different as alternative claims. So too here. Four claims, essentially two causes of action.
I am a lawyer who doesn't have TikTok on my phone and I agree with the PP -- Freedman only has two claims he can re-plead and he effed up when he claimed there were four.
Anonymous wrote:Something tangentially related to this case that I'm curious about: I wonder if the most militant, believe-all-women feminists are only children? Because based on my brothers' experiences in the workplace and my own, we know how underhanded and passive aggressive women can be. Men can ALSO be underhanded and passive aggressive, obviously. I'm not saying women are worse colleagues or bosses. I'm just they can be just *as* flawed, as all human beings are, and I'm over this idea that women are perfect and make perfect colleagues and would never ever lie compared to the sex pest men who frequent the workplace.
I was sexually harassed *by a woman* at work, and I currently support Lively in this action. Of course women can be flawed.
You didn't actually answer my question. I see how women in the workplace can mistreat men because I have brothers, which makes it easier for me to not believe Blake. Not saying that anything close like this has happened to them, I'm just saying that women can be the aggressors toward men, which BL supporters can't seem to wrap their heads around, and I wonder if it's because they're only children or only have sisters.
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.
Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!
DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.
Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).
As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.
I can see taking more than 4 hours to respond because it’s a longer decision.
But if, as you say, you need to “gather your thoughts,” that extra time should really ensure that your lead attorney does not then turn around and get the claims you are refiling wrong. You would not see Manatt or Willkie making this stupid mistake tbh. You don’t overstate what you’re going to come back fighting on, either to your client (who Freedman should have consulted with before going public on TMZ lol) or to the public.
This just emphasizes to me how Freedman is absolutely obsessed with PR to the point where him being on TV is more important than what he is actually saying. Wtf is wrong with this dude? He took a whole day and didn’t figure out his remaining claims properly, which I did in 20 minutes? Remember Succession? This is sh!t show at the clown factory stuff.
I don’t think anyone really cares about the details, just the overall message.
Do you know these lawyers personally? Are you a lawyer? I’ve heard of freedman because he represents famous clients, but I would never normally see the names of lawyers in PR statements and I think 99.99 percent of people don’t know or care either way. My colleagues and I laugh bc when one of our cases makes it in the news, it’s so very rare to see lawyer names mentioned. People don’t notice or care. But you seem to.
It seems very personal to you.
I am a lawyer (I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to figure the claim tracing I did above out, except maybe a very good paralegal) and while my firm never goes on TMZ, we do get quoted in news articles, especially legal pubs. If we made a mistake like this about the remaining claims we had in a lawsuit in one of those, it would mean an immediate client call to do damage control. Whoever’s mistake it was would get reprimanded. People woukd “care about the details” lolol.
But Freedman is in charge of this sh!t show so maybe when he makes mistakes — like this or like not ever filing an amended complaint so that nearly all of Baldoni’s claims get dismissed *poof* — maybe the client doesn’t know how to reprimand him. Since he handled the PR so brilliantly! But on the legal part of being a lawyer, he is sucking pretty hard, turns out.
Well, I’m not entirely sure it was a mistake but in any event, the crisis PR I worked with would never suggest going out with some other statement like you’re suggesting. ‘Oh we said we’d re file 4 claims, but we actually meant 3’. It’s really silly to think anyone would care. It’s not like PR statements are written guarantees!
He should definitely say that. That would be wrong, also, so very on brand for him. He only has 2 remaining claims.
He’s not wrong. There are four claims that fall under the rubric of the two causes of actions the judge said he could replead. It’s just a difference in semantics.
lol no! Nice try! He went on tv to say he has 4 claims remaking and will include in his amended complaint, and specifically named two of those four claims as (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Which is a problem because the judge specifically told him in the order that those claims are dismissed with prejudice and he cannot refile.
Keep up.
You are incorrect (and extremely rude, as usual). Anyway, this lawyer went through the comparing and there are indeed four., but so closely related in nature, that it is two causes of action. You can watch, if you liike, but the don’t want to waste my time typing it all out for you. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MwAhm2/
I can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.
He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.
Also TikTok works on phones, feel free to join the rest of us in modern society at any time.
Not when you don’t have the app.
Anyway, Freedman names the specific claims on TMZ — he has them written down. Does TikTok lady think he can still raise claims for intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations? Because those were dismissed with prejudice, and he can’t. Except he says he will.
Lady watch the TikTok or shut up. If you were a lawyer, you would know that lawyers always plead closely related causes of action where perhaps one element is slightly different as alternative claims. So too here. Four claims, essentially two causes of action.
If you can’t even say in plain language what claims your TikTok lady is saying will be pled, stop wasting my time.
Anonymous wrote:Something tangentially related to this case that I'm curious about: I wonder if the most militant, believe-all-women feminists are only children? Because based on my brothers' experiences in the workplace and my own, we know how underhanded and passive aggressive women can be. Men can ALSO be underhanded and passive aggressive, obviously. I'm not saying women are worse colleagues or bosses. I'm just they can be just *as* flawed, as all human beings are, and I'm over this idea that women are perfect and make perfect colleagues and would never ever lie compared to the sex pest men who frequent the workplace.
I was sexually harassed *by a woman* at work, and I currently support Lively in this action. Of course women can be flawed.
The victim in this scenario is still a woman (you).
Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?
Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.
To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.
What if the accusations aren't false?
If the accusations aren’t false, and he has found guilty than he should not be able to sue.
But he still has is day in court right? We haven’t concluded that he sexually harassed and retaliated right? Or does he not even deserve a trial. Because Blake is pretty and she married a famous guy who makes us laugh when he dresses in a funny costume.
Just trying to understand modern feminism!
This isn’t a criminal trial. He won’t be found guilty. He’ll just be held liable for damages, if the jury finds him responsible for harassment or a smear campaign. And, yes, unless the parties settle (which Baldoni supporters keep urging), it will go to trial and he can defend his good name etc. As it should be. No problem from me.
His $400M defamation and extortion claims, though, have now been flatly tossed out by the judge as having insufficient facts to support them or being otherwise insufficiently pled. That’s on Freedman. Moreover, the clear insufficiency of the defamation suit — a claim that harassers will often file against their accusers to shut them up and make them settle — and the way that Liman was able to kick it out on a MTD — also says something to me. He filed a $400 million countersuit, including huge defamation claims abusers often file — and now those defamation claims got tossed out. So as PP said, maybe it was all just a tactic from the beginning, and maybe Baldoni shouldn’t be able to do that. Or should have to pay extra for having engaged in those oppressive tactics.
My question is, if he is found not guilty, does he have any recourse for Blake dragging him through this for two years. It would be one thing if this was a normal person who had to defend himself against sexual harassment allegations. But she went to the New York Times. Just wondering if he would have any recourse at that point.
I’m not one of the lawyers on this thread, so I don’t have a clear understanding of what went down this week in terms of implications for future.
He could potentially get some of his attorney's fees reimbursed. Though who knows how much of his fees he's paying for anyway -- presumably they have corporate insurance that is paying for it, and it looks like Sarowitz is probably paying as well.
I don't actually get the distinction you are making between a "normal person who had to defend himself against sexual harassment allegations" and Baldoni. If anything, I would feel more sorry for a non-millionaire with no access to top notch legal representation and publicists and a billionaire backer if they had to defend against claims that ultimately failed. A regular person is also less likely to have the kind of insurance coverage to cover something like this.
Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?
Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.
To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.
What if the accusations aren't false?
If the accusations aren’t false, and he has found guilty than he should not be able to sue.
But he still has is day in court right? We haven’t concluded that he sexually harassed and retaliated right? Or does he not even deserve a trial. Because Blake is pretty and she married a famous guy who makes us laugh when he dresses in a funny costume.
Just trying to understand modern feminism!
This isn’t a criminal trial. He won’t be found guilty. He’ll just be held liable for damages, if the jury finds him responsible for harassment or a smear campaign. And, yes, unless the parties settle (which Baldoni supporters keep urging), it will go to trial and he can defend his good name etc. As it should be. No problem from me.
His $400M defamation and extortion claims, though, have now been flatly tossed out by the judge as having insufficient facts to support them or being otherwise insufficiently pled. That’s on Freedman. Moreover, the clear insufficiency of the defamation suit — a claim that harassers will often file against their accusers to shut them up and make them settle — and the way that Liman was able to kick it out on a MTD — also says something to me. He filed a $400 million countersuit, including huge defamation claims abusers often file — and now those defamation claims got tossed out. So as PP said, maybe it was all just a tactic from the beginning, and maybe Baldoni shouldn’t be able to do that. Or should have to pay extra for having engaged in those oppressive tactics.
My question is, if he is found not guilty, does he have any recourse for Blake dragging him through this for two years. It would be one thing if this was a normal person who had to defend himself against sexual harassment allegations. But she went to the New York Times. Just wondering if he would have any recourse at that point.
I’m not one of the lawyers on this thread, so I don’t have a clear understanding of what went down this week in terms of implications for future.
According to this judge, no. Which is why some are urging an appeal of the defamation dismissal. Bit even with that, the odds are long.
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
