Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The angry tag team duo is back. Lively is a racist and gets offended by lots of innocuous things. Get huffy all you want but it doesn't change anything. Nice try too for Reynolds/Lively throwing out PR pieces about date-night hair, Trader Joe's photo op, son supposedly loved Green Lantern and my favorite that Reynolds always wanted to be in control of movies he is in. They are manipulative, mean-spirited people and the mask has fallen. They do always have the dynamic duo fervently defending them.

Selective outrage I see.

Nope, wasn't the PP you were trying to bait. I do think selective outrage applies to you though. And your tag-team buddy

The outrage is clearly on the list making PP's side. Too bad nobody cares or is even following this case anymore except you and your buddy who bump it up every once in awhile to talk about how much you hate Blake when nothing new is happening.

As opposed to the hundreds of pages spent exaggerating the allegations in the complaint. We’re in the midst of dispositive motion briefing and new exhibits are unsealed every few days.

So why are you digging up the past again and again? This case is a snooze.

Then just ignore this thread, problem solved in more ways than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree this case has gotten boring but there is some interesting stuff coming out as a lot of discovery docs are being unsealed. For instance, this is a timeline Jamey Heath and Wayfarer put together at the end of July 2024, detailing all the issues through pre-production, production, and post-production. I found it interesting to skim and there are some things that were definitely new to me, like the timeline on when Colleen Hoover shifted to Blake's side when the film was in the screening process, and the involvement of Brendan Sklenar in that process (in fact the timeline says that Colleen and Blake had never met prior to Colleen attending a screening of Blake's cut of the film at Book Bonanza, which I was pretty surprised to learn).

I also was interested to see the audience scores from all the screenings, which tell a more nuanced story than what I'd previously understood. The movie was screened four times, but it appears three different versions were screened. These were the results:

#1, Baldoni's cut: 76%
#2, Baldoni's cut: 86%
#3, Blake's cut: 83%
#4, Blake's second cut, which Wayfare says incorporated "most" of what they had wanted anyway: 81%

I actually work with surveys for a living and would argue that this data is fairly useless because it was 4 different audiences and there's going to be a movement in those numbers no matter what, even if you screened the exact same cut four times. But it's notable that Baldoni's cut received both the lowest and highest audience rating, and that Blake's original cut scored higher than the Final Cut which apparently incorporated more of what Baldoni wanted in it.

If I had to draw conclusions based on that, I would suggest that either cut was going to play fairly well with audiences, but that Baldoni's original cut was potentially more divisive because it got that outlier 76% in the initial screening. I'd be inclined to go with either Blake's original cut or the compromise cut from screening #4 (which is what was released) out of concern that Baldoni's cut might be tun off some viewers, even though it also scored reasonably well with an average score of 81%.

Anyway, here's the timeline, it's got a bunch of other stuff in there in case anyone else wants to go hunting for something to talk about: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.874.17.pdf

I think Baldoni scored better with the desired age demo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree this case has gotten boring but there is some interesting stuff coming out as a lot of discovery docs are being unsealed. For instance, this is a timeline Jamey Heath and Wayfarer put together at the end of July 2024, detailing all the issues through pre-production, production, and post-production. I found it interesting to skim and there are some things that were definitely new to me, like the timeline on when Colleen Hoover shifted to Blake's side when the film was in the screening process, and the involvement of Brendan Sklenar in that process (in fact the timeline says that Colleen and Blake had never met prior to Colleen attending a screening of Blake's cut of the film at Book Bonanza, which I was pretty surprised to learn).

I also was interested to see the audience scores from all the screenings, which tell a more nuanced story than what I'd previously understood. The movie was screened four times, but it appears three different versions were screened. These were the results:

#1, Baldoni's cut: 76%
#2, Baldoni's cut: 86%
#3, Blake's cut: 83%
#4, Blake's second cut, which Wayfare says incorporated "most" of what they had wanted anyway: 81%

I actually work with surveys for a living and would argue that this data is fairly useless because it was 4 different audiences and there's going to be a movement in those numbers no matter what, even if you screened the exact same cut four times. But it's notable that Baldoni's cut received both the lowest and highest audience rating, and that Blake's original cut scored higher than the Final Cut which apparently incorporated more of what Baldoni wanted in it.

If I had to draw conclusions based on that, I would suggest that either cut was going to play fairly well with audiences, but that Baldoni's original cut was potentially more divisive because it got that outlier 76% in the initial screening. I'd be inclined to go with either Blake's original cut or the compromise cut from screening #4 (which is what was released) out of concern that Baldoni's cut might be tun off some viewers, even though it also scored reasonably well with an average score of 81%.

Anyway, here's the timeline, it's got a bunch of other stuff in there in case anyone else wants to go hunting for something to talk about: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.874.17.pdf

Thanks - I appreciate seeing something on here about the actual lawsuit. Annoyed the MSJ exhibits aren't going to be unsealed until around Christmas, ugh.

Random thoughts on this...

What do we make of "Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman were present in the apartment" (but not saying the room!) when Ryan yelled at Justin. I'm sure it's a huge apartment, but it sounded like this meeting went on for quite a while, and they presumably came to visit Ryan and Blake so it's so odd to think they were at the apartment just chilling in another room while all this was going on, and I wonder if they heard the yelling, but again, big apartment I'm sure. I do not get the impression Swift was actively involved in anything, and perhaps was unaware she was being used as an intimidation talisman of sorts, but maybe she's not that naive.

On 5/11/23 what does that mean that Justin recorded rehearsal with Jenny? I guess that means off-set, like a table read? And something that is not commonly done since they thought it was noteworthy for the timeline? And this is a week before she got upset that he said she looked sexy in the leather pants, so he wasn't recording because of that.

On 6/7 or 6/8/23, "Alex and Justin had their thing on set" and argue about a shot. What was this about, do we know? I only just figured out Alek Saks is a girl.

It's so interesting when we learn how much we really don't know yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree this case has gotten boring but there is some interesting stuff coming out as a lot of discovery docs are being unsealed. For instance, this is a timeline Jamey Heath and Wayfarer put together at the end of July 2024, detailing all the issues through pre-production, production, and post-production. I found it interesting to skim and there are some things that were definitely new to me, like the timeline on when Colleen Hoover shifted to Blake's side when the film was in the screening process, and the involvement of Brendan Sklenar in that process (in fact the timeline says that Colleen and Blake had never met prior to Colleen attending a screening of Blake's cut of the film at Book Bonanza, which I was pretty surprised to learn).

I also was interested to see the audience scores from all the screenings, which tell a more nuanced story than what I'd previously understood. The movie was screened four times, but it appears three different versions were screened. These were the results:

#1, Baldoni's cut: 76%
#2, Baldoni's cut: 86%
#3, Blake's cut: 83%
#4, Blake's second cut, which Wayfare says incorporated "most" of what they had wanted anyway: 81%

I actually work with surveys for a living and would argue that this data is fairly useless because it was 4 different audiences and there's going to be a movement in those numbers no matter what, even if you screened the exact same cut four times. But it's notable that Baldoni's cut received both the lowest and highest audience rating, and that Blake's original cut scored higher than the Final Cut which apparently incorporated more of what Baldoni wanted in it.

If I had to draw conclusions based on that, I would suggest that either cut was going to play fairly well with audiences, but that Baldoni's original cut was potentially more divisive because it got that outlier 76% in the initial screening. I'd be inclined to go with either Blake's original cut or the compromise cut from screening #4 (which is what was released) out of concern that Baldoni's cut might be tun off some viewers, even though it also scored reasonably well with an average score of 81%.

Anyway, here's the timeline, it's got a bunch of other stuff in there in case anyone else wants to go hunting for something to talk about: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.874.17.pdf

Thanks - I appreciate seeing something on here about the actual lawsuit. Annoyed the MSJ exhibits aren't going to be unsealed until around Christmas, ugh.

Random thoughts on this...

What do we make of "Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman were present in the apartment" (but not saying the room!) when Ryan yelled at Justin. I'm sure it's a huge apartment, but it sounded like this meeting went on for quite a while, and they presumably came to visit Ryan and Blake so it's so odd to think they were at the apartment just chilling in another room while all this was going on, and I wonder if they heard the yelling, but again, big apartment I'm sure. I do not get the impression Swift was actively involved in anything, and perhaps was unaware she was being used as an intimidation talisman of sorts, but maybe she's not that naive.

On 5/11/23 what does that mean that Justin recorded rehearsal with Jenny? I guess that means off-set, like a table read? And something that is not commonly done since they thought it was noteworthy for the timeline? And this is a week before she got upset that he said she looked sexy in the leather pants, so he wasn't recording because of that.

On 6/7 or 6/8/23, "Alex and Justin had their thing on set" and argue about a shot. What was this about, do we know? I only just figured out Alek Saks is a girl.

It's so interesting when we learn how much we really don't know yet.

I think the Jenny Slate thing is related to something that shows up in the 17 point list. Something like "no more recording people without their consent." The implication is that Justin recorded rehearsal without letting Jenny know he was doing it, and that's what she objected to.

Regarding Alex Saks, she is a producer from Sony who worked on the movie. What the document says is "Alex and Justin had their thing on set. Alex insisted that JB already had the shot and did not need to do another take. JB sternly responded that 'I will decide.' Alex ended up leaving shortly thereafter." The timeline also mentions that they were dealing with cost overruns and delays by this point in filming (actually still pretty early on, so it's a big problem) so it's unsurprising that Sony, which had a major financial interest in the movie, would be concerned about additional costs that might be incurred from extending a shoot for another take. Perhaps it was going to result in overtime for crew or push back the turnaround time of actors (SAG actors are required to have a certain number of hours off between days of shooting, so if filming runs late, it can cause delays in the morning because the actors are not supposed to start until their turnaround time has passed). But it's interesting that the exchange was noted and problematic that involved a female producer.

I am personally not convinced the timeline is correct about Swift and Jackman being present for that meeting where Reynolds yelled at Baldoni about the trainer/weight issue. I think potentially the timeline is conflating two meetings (this one and the script meeting where Swift told Baldoni she liked Blake's rewrite, I think Jackman showed up towards the end of that meeting as well, it wasn't contentious). It sounds like the timeline was composed largely by Jamey Heath, so it makes sense that he might have confused these two incidents since he was not present for either and would have heard about them second hand from Baldoni. The script meeting is not mentioned in the timeline so I'm guessing Heath or whoever drafted the document just confused them.

[Anonymous]

One thing that I found interesting was Alex ax was from Sony and she was the one early on that sent a note to Justin that Blake was taking over and that this was not good.

I had gotten the impression from earlier that Sony just rolled over and did whatever and Blake and Ryan wanted but it sounded like they also did not like what Blake was doing on set.

It’s an interesting choice to let the two female ADs that Blake had fired have their names come out. I’m wondering if we’re going to hear from them or if they are just over it and trying to move on.

I don’t know, after all this, it seemed like the women who were uncomfortable was Jenny for having they rehearsal filmed which is not really sexual harassment. And Blake’s sister didn’t want Justin to hug her. Which fine, but seems a stretch to make it act as if all the women on the set were uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The angry tag team duo is back. Lively is a racist and gets offended by lots of innocuous things. Get huffy all you want but it doesn't change anything. Nice try too for Reynolds/Lively throwing out PR pieces about date-night hair, Trader Joe's photo op, son supposedly loved Green Lantern and my favorite that Reynolds always wanted to be in control of movies he is in. They are manipulative, mean-spirited people and the mask has fallen. They do always have the dynamic duo fervently defending them.

Selective outrage I see.

Nope, wasn't the PP you were trying to bait. I do think selective outrage applies to you though. And your tag-team buddy

The outrage is clearly on the list making PP's side. Too bad nobody cares or is even following this case anymore except you and your buddy who bump it up every once in awhile to talk about how much you hate Blake when nothing new is happening.

As opposed to the hundreds of pages spent exaggerating the allegations in the complaint. We’re in the midst of dispositive motion briefing and new exhibits are unsealed every few days.

So why are you digging up the past again and again? This case is a snooze.

Then just ignore this thread, problem solved in more ways than one.

One would actually think if it's bumped maybe something actually happened. But, no. Keep dredging up the same crap that happened a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The angry tag team duo is back. Lively is a racist and gets offended by lots of innocuous things. Get huffy all you want but it doesn't change anything. Nice try too for Reynolds/Lively throwing out PR pieces about date-night hair, Trader Joe's photo op, son supposedly loved Green Lantern and my favorite that Reynolds always wanted to be in control of movies he is in. They are manipulative, mean-spirited people and the mask has fallen. They do always have the dynamic duo fervently defending them.

Selective outrage I see.

Nope, wasn't the PP you were trying to bait. I do think selective outrage applies to you though. And your tag-team buddy

The outrage is clearly on the list making PP's side. Too bad nobody cares or is even following this case anymore except you and your buddy who bump it up every once in awhile to talk about how much you hate Blake when nothing new is happening.

As opposed to the hundreds of pages spent exaggerating the allegations in the complaint. We’re in the midst of dispositive motion briefing and new exhibits are unsealed every few days.

So why are you digging up the past again and again? This case is a snooze.

Then just ignore this thread, problem solved in more ways than one.

One would actually think if it's bumped maybe something actually happened. But, no. Keep dredging up the same crap that happened a decade ago.

Are you on the right thread? Every few days more documents are being unsealed and more information is coming out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree this case has gotten boring but there is some interesting stuff coming out as a lot of discovery docs are being unsealed. For instance, this is a timeline Jamey Heath and Wayfarer put together at the end of July 2024, detailing all the issues through pre-production, production, and post-production. I found it interesting to skim and there are some things that were definitely new to me, like the timeline on when Colleen Hoover shifted to Blake's side when the film was in the screening process, and the involvement of Brendan Sklenar in that process (in fact the timeline says that Colleen and Blake had never met prior to Colleen attending a screening of Blake's cut of the film at Book Bonanza, which I was pretty surprised to learn).

I also was interested to see the audience scores from all the screenings, which tell a more nuanced story than what I'd previously understood. The movie was screened four times, but it appears three different versions were screened. These were the results:

#1, Baldoni's cut: 76%
#2, Baldoni's cut: 86%
#3, Blake's cut: 83%
#4, Blake's second cut, which Wayfare says incorporated "most" of what they had wanted anyway: 81%

I actually work with surveys for a living and would argue that this data is fairly useless because it was 4 different audiences and there's going to be a movement in those numbers no matter what, even if you screened the exact same cut four times. But it's notable that Baldoni's cut received both the lowest and highest audience rating, and that Blake's original cut scored higher than the Final Cut which apparently incorporated more of what Baldoni wanted in it.

If I had to draw conclusions based on that, I would suggest that either cut was going to play fairly well with audiences, but that Baldoni's original cut was potentially more divisive because it got that outlier 76% in the initial screening. I'd be inclined to go with either Blake's original cut or the compromise cut from screening #4 (which is what was released) out of concern that Baldoni's cut might be tun off some viewers, even though it also scored reasonably well with an average score of 81%.

Anyway, here's the timeline, it's got a bunch of other stuff in there in case anyone else wants to go hunting for something to talk about: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.874.17.pdf

Thanks - I appreciate seeing something on here about the actual lawsuit. Annoyed the MSJ exhibits aren't going to be unsealed until around Christmas, ugh.

Random thoughts on this...

What do we make of "Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman were present in the apartment" (but not saying the room!) when Ryan yelled at Justin. I'm sure it's a huge apartment, but it sounded like this meeting went on for quite a while, and they presumably came to visit Ryan and Blake so it's so odd to think they were at the apartment just chilling in another room while all this was going on, and I wonder if they heard the yelling, but again, big apartment I'm sure. I do not get the impression Swift was actively involved in anything, and perhaps was unaware she was being used as an intimidation talisman of sorts, but maybe she's not that naive.

On 5/11/23 what does that mean that Justin recorded rehearsal with Jenny? I guess that means off-set, like a table read? And something that is not commonly done since they thought it was noteworthy for the timeline? And this is a week before she got upset that he said she looked sexy in the leather pants, so he wasn't recording because of that.

On 6/7 or 6/8/23, "Alex and Justin had their thing on set" and argue about a shot. What was this about, do we know? I only just figured out Alek Saks is a girl.

It's so interesting when we learn how much we really don't know yet.

I think the Jenny Slate thing is related to something that shows up in the 17 point list. Something like "no more recording people without their consent." The implication is that Justin recorded rehearsal without letting Jenny know he was doing it, and that's what she objected to.

Regarding Alex Saks, she is a producer from Sony who worked on the movie. What the document says is "Alex and Justin had their thing on set. Alex insisted that JB already had the shot and did not need to do another take. JB sternly responded that 'I will decide.' Alex ended up leaving shortly thereafter." The timeline also mentions that they were dealing with cost overruns and delays by this point in filming (actually still pretty early on, so it's a big problem) so it's unsurprising that Sony, which had a major financial interest in the movie, would be concerned about additional costs that might be incurred from extending a shoot for another take. Perhaps it was going to result in overtime for crew or push back the turnaround time of actors (SAG actors are required to have a certain number of hours off between days of shooting, so if filming runs late, it can cause delays in the morning because the actors are not supposed to start until their turnaround time has passed). But it's interesting that the exchange was noted and problematic that involved a female producer.

I am personally not convinced the timeline is correct about Swift and Jackman being present for that meeting where Reynolds yelled at Baldoni about the trainer/weight issue. I think potentially the timeline is conflating two meetings (this one and the script meeting where Swift told Baldoni she liked Blake's rewrite, I think Jackman showed up towards the end of that meeting as well, it wasn't contentious). It sounds like the timeline was composed largely by Jamey Heath, so it makes sense that he might have confused these two incidents since he was not present for either and would have heard about them second hand from Baldoni. The script meeting is not mentioned in the timeline so I'm guessing Heath or whoever drafted the document just confused them.

Right, they confused them, but you, an internet random, know what’s what.

[Anonymous]

So an actual, tangible development today.

Liman denied a motion to quash a subpoena from Lively to Andy Signore, aka Popcorn Planet. Motion to quash was denied basically because Signore is deemed not to be a journalist and the requested communications would overcome journalist privilege anyway because apparently Lively can't get it any other way and it's directly relevant to her claims.

But these two details are juicy:

"item four on the privilege log is a six-month-long, eighty-nine-page text message conversation between Signore and a defendant in the underlying lawsuit."

and

"Furthermore, an in camera review reveals that the responsive materials are directly relevant and material to Livley’s claim. Lively further establishes that she tried to discover this information from the defendants and, to some extent, has been unable to obtain these materials from them. Lively demonstrates a compelling need because these materials go “to the ‘heart of the matter,’” that is, the primary theory underlying Lively’s defamation claim."

I think the 6-month text message chain is likely with Melissa Nathan. To be clear, Liman isn't saying this document proves Lively's claim, only that it's directly relevant to her defamation claims. This is pretty significant because there has been a lot of complaining that Lively asserted a "smear campaign" in her complaint but has so far only produced evidence of, maybe, some planning to perhaps smear her. But if a text conversation between Nathan and Signore contains evidence that Nathan, on Wayfarer's dime and at their direction, seeded negative stories about Lively for Signore to disseminate, well, that would be a smear campaign.

Here's the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291.37.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree this case has gotten boring but there is some interesting stuff coming out as a lot of discovery docs are being unsealed. For instance, this is a timeline Jamey Heath and Wayfarer put together at the end of July 2024, detailing all the issues through pre-production, production, and post-production. I found it interesting to skim and there are some things that were definitely new to me, like the timeline on when Colleen Hoover shifted to Blake's side when the film was in the screening process, and the involvement of Brendan Sklenar in that process (in fact the timeline says that Colleen and Blake had never met prior to Colleen attending a screening of Blake's cut of the film at Book Bonanza, which I was pretty surprised to learn).

I also was interested to see the audience scores from all the screenings, which tell a more nuanced story than what I'd previously understood. The movie was screened four times, but it appears three different versions were screened. These were the results:

#1, Baldoni's cut: 76%
#2, Baldoni's cut: 86%
#3, Blake's cut: 83%
#4, Blake's second cut, which Wayfare says incorporated "most" of what they had wanted anyway: 81%

I actually work with surveys for a living and would argue that this data is fairly useless because it was 4 different audiences and there's going to be a movement in those numbers no matter what, even if you screened the exact same cut four times. But it's notable that Baldoni's cut received both the lowest and highest audience rating, and that Blake's original cut scored higher than the Final Cut which apparently incorporated more of what Baldoni wanted in it.

If I had to draw conclusions based on that, I would suggest that either cut was going to play fairly well with audiences, but that Baldoni's original cut was potentially more divisive because it got that outlier 76% in the initial screening. I'd be inclined to go with either Blake's original cut or the compromise cut from screening #4 (which is what was released) out of concern that Baldoni's cut might be tun off some viewers, even though it also scored reasonably well with an average score of 81%.

Anyway, here's the timeline, it's got a bunch of other stuff in there in case anyone else wants to go hunting for something to talk about: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.874.17.pdf

Thanks - I appreciate seeing something on here about the actual lawsuit. Annoyed the MSJ exhibits aren't going to be unsealed until around Christmas, ugh.

Random thoughts on this...

What do we make of "Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman were present in the apartment" (but not saying the room!) when Ryan yelled at Justin. I'm sure it's a huge apartment, but it sounded like this meeting went on for quite a while, and they presumably came to visit Ryan and Blake so it's so odd to think they were at the apartment just chilling in another room while all this was going on, and I wonder if they heard the yelling, but again, big apartment I'm sure. I do not get the impression Swift was actively involved in anything, and perhaps was unaware she was being used as an intimidation talisman of sorts, but maybe she's not that naive.

On 5/11/23 what does that mean that Justin recorded rehearsal with Jenny? I guess that means off-set, like a table read? And something that is not commonly done since they thought it was noteworthy for the timeline? And this is a week before she got upset that he said she looked sexy in the leather pants, so he wasn't recording because of that.

On 6/7 or 6/8/23, "Alex and Justin had their thing on set" and argue about a shot. What was this about, do we know? I only just figured out Alek Saks is a girl.

It's so interesting when we learn how much we really don't know yet.

I think the Jenny Slate thing is related to something that shows up in the 17 point list. Something like "no more recording people without their consent." The implication is that Justin recorded rehearsal without letting Jenny know he was doing it, and that's what she objected to.

Regarding Alex Saks, she is a producer from Sony who worked on the movie. What the document says is "Alex and Justin had their thing on set. Alex insisted that JB already had the shot and did not need to do another take. JB sternly responded that 'I will decide.' Alex ended up leaving shortly thereafter." The timeline also mentions that they were dealing with cost overruns and delays by this point in filming (actually still pretty early on, so it's a big problem) so it's unsurprising that Sony, which had a major financial interest in the movie, would be concerned about additional costs that might be incurred from extending a shoot for another take. Perhaps it was going to result in overtime for crew or push back the turnaround time of actors (SAG actors are required to have a certain number of hours off between days of shooting, so if filming runs late, it can cause delays in the morning because the actors are not supposed to start until their turnaround time has passed). But it's interesting that the exchange was noted and problematic that involved a female producer.

I am personally not convinced the timeline is correct about Swift and Jackman being present for that meeting where Reynolds yelled at Baldoni about the trainer/weight issue. I think potentially the timeline is conflating two meetings (this one and the script meeting where Swift told Baldoni she liked Blake's rewrite, I think Jackman showed up towards the end of that meeting as well, it wasn't contentious). It sounds like the timeline was composed largely by Jamey Heath, so it makes sense that he might have confused these two incidents since he was not present for either and would have heard about them second hand from Baldoni. The script meeting is not mentioned in the timeline so I'm guessing Heath or whoever drafted the document just confused them.

Right, they confused them, but you, an internet random, know what’s what.

I'm not saying they confused them because they are stupid. I'm saying that when this document was created (in late July of 2024), Jamey Heath may not have understood that Baldoni had two separate incidents at Lively's apartment prior to production: (1) the meeting with Ryan where Ryan yelled at him about the weight question to the trainer, and (2) the meeting with Ryan and Blake about the rooftop scene where Taylor Swift showed up and said she liked Blake's version of the rooftop scene. Since Jamey was at neither meeting, and was going on what he'd been told by Baldoni, and this was at a time when they were just starting to anticipate there may be some kind of PR battle or possible legal battle, it is not unreasonable that Heath may have confused the two meetings in compiling a list of incidents that Blake might try to leak to the press or put into a legal action.

I am an internet random but have some advantages over the Jamey Heath in July 2024, namely over a year of following this case and reading, for example, the much more detailed and extensive timeline that Heath and the rest of the defendants put together for their complaint against Blake, which does not mention Taylor or Hugh Jackman being at the meeting where Ryan yelled about the trainer, but does mention a different meeting that Taylor was definitely present at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So an actual, tangible development today.

Liman denied a motion to quash a subpoena from Lively to Andy Signore, aka Popcorn Planet. Motion to quash was denied basically because Signore is deemed not to be a journalist and the requested communications would overcome journalist privilege anyway because apparently Lively can't get it any other way and it's directly relevant to her claims.

But these two details are juicy:

"item four on the privilege log is a six-month-long, eighty-nine-page text message conversation between Signore and a defendant in the underlying lawsuit."

and

"Furthermore, an in camera review reveals that the responsive materials are directly relevant and material to Livley’s claim. Lively further establishes that she tried to discover this information from the defendants and, to some extent, has been unable to obtain these materials from them. Lively demonstrates a compelling need because these materials go “to the ‘heart of the matter,’” that is, the primary theory underlying Lively’s defamation claim."

I think the 6-month text message chain is likely with Melissa Nathan. To be clear, Liman isn't saying this document proves Lively's claim, only that it's directly relevant to her defamation claims. This is pretty significant because there has been a lot of complaining that Lively asserted a "smear campaign" in her complaint but has so far only produced evidence of, maybe, some planning to perhaps smear her. But if a text conversation between Nathan and Signore contains evidence that Nathan, on Wayfarer's dime and at their direction, seeded negative stories about Lively for Signore to disseminate, well, that would be a smear campaign.

Here's the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291.37.0.pdf

That wasn’t Liman, it was the Tampa magistrate judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So an actual, tangible development today.

Liman denied a motion to quash a subpoena from Lively to Andy Signore, aka Popcorn Planet. Motion to quash was denied basically because Signore is deemed not to be a journalist and the requested communications would overcome journalist privilege anyway because apparently Lively can't get it any other way and it's directly relevant to her claims.

But these two details are juicy:

"item four on the privilege log is a six-month-long, eighty-nine-page text message conversation between Signore and a defendant in the underlying lawsuit."

and

"Furthermore, an in camera review reveals that the responsive materials are directly relevant and material to Livley’s claim. Lively further establishes that she tried to discover this information from the defendants and, to some extent, has been unable to obtain these materials from them. Lively demonstrates a compelling need because these materials go “to the ‘heart of the matter,’” that is, the primary theory underlying Lively’s defamation claim."

I think the 6-month text message chain is likely with Melissa Nathan. To be clear, Liman isn't saying this document proves Lively's claim, only that it's directly relevant to her defamation claims. This is pretty significant because there has been a lot of complaining that Lively asserted a "smear campaign" in her complaint but has so far only produced evidence of, maybe, some planning to perhaps smear her. But if a text conversation between Nathan and Signore contains evidence that Nathan, on Wayfarer's dime and at their direction, seeded negative stories about Lively for Signore to disseminate, well, that would be a smear campaign.

Here's the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291.37.0.pdf

That wasn’t Liman, it was the Tampa magistrate judge.

Oops, yes, I knew that but defaulted to Liman by accident.

[Anonymous]

The Tampa judge seemed really unimpressed with Signore's attorney. I was not quite comfortable that his having "only" a YouTube channel (with over a million subscribers) and no accompanying website was used to support his not being a journalist. I think Signore is likely a bad actor, but I could totally see a person incorporating themselves as a company and doing actual journalism on YT. Doesn't help that he lied about what type of corporation he has, but I'm not satisfied with the idea that this means he's self-employed and not part of a news organization. That is a really tough standard and so outdated. And on top of that, judge says the lawyer didn't do much to explain his newsgathering methods.

Lively also had some stuff in her opposition citing his Linked In where he basically represents himself as up for hire for SEO and digital campaigns, but Signore claimed that was an outdated description and the judge does not bring it up in the order so apparently did not consider it. That to me is a better basis for him not being a journalist than the fact that he incorporated his own channel, but since it was in dispute it was easier not to rely on that.

Part of me does wonder if whatever he was texting to Nathan bugged the judge during the in camera review and swayed him to Lively's side.

I looked back at some of the other documents and Lively claimed he started posting negative stories about her in August 2024 but the privilege log only covers 2025, so if Nathan was feeding him stories via those texts, that was after he started covering the case, which is a point in WF's favor I guess. Lively's subpoena was not limited to 2025 so any 2024 communications should have been included.

I would love to see it eventually unsealed but he doesn't have to turn it over to Lively til December 17, so too late for her to include in her MSJ opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Tampa judge seemed really unimpressed with Signore's attorney. I was not quite comfortable that his having "only" a YouTube channel (with over a million subscribers) and no accompanying website was used to support his not being a journalist. I think Signore is likely a bad actor, but I could totally see a person incorporating themselves as a company and doing actual journalism on YT. Doesn't help that he lied about what type of corporation he has, but I'm not satisfied with the idea that this means he's self-employed and not part of a news organization. That is a really tough standard and so outdated. And on top of that, judge says the lawyer didn't do much to explain his newsgathering methods.

Lively also had some stuff in her opposition citing his Linked In where he basically represents himself as up for hire for SEO and digital campaigns, but Signore claimed that was an outdated description and the judge does not bring it up in the order so apparently did not consider it. That to me is a better basis for him not being a journalist than the fact that he incorporated his own channel, but since it was in dispute it was easier not to rely on that.

Part of me does wonder if whatever he was texting to Nathan bugged the judge during the in camera review and swayed him to Lively's side.

I looked back at some of the other documents and Lively claimed he started posting negative stories about her in August 2024 but the privilege log only covers 2025, so if Nathan was feeding him stories via those texts, that was after he started covering the case, which is a point in WF's favor I guess. Lively's subpoena was not limited to 2025 so any 2024 communications should have been included.

I would love to see it eventually unsealed but he doesn't have to turn it over to Lively til December 17, so too late for her to include in her MSJ opposition.

I think because the judge found that even if Signore was a journalist, Lively overcame the privilege by other means, it doesn't really matter that the judge also determined that Signore was not a journalist. I personally agree with the judge, primarily because Signore does not adhere to any journalistic standards or ethics, but that's just my personal opinion and not based on any legal reasoning. So I guess that's why the ruling doesn't bother me.

I do hope we see that text exchange at some point, not least because I bet it's probably hilarious. Both Nathan and Signore seem like catty gossips so I bet they talk so much $hit about a wide variety of people including lots of celebs and all the parties in this case, and it would funny to read.

[Anonymous]

Wait, they revealed the names of the two ADs who were fired? Who were they?