Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the arguments that Blake supporters put forth in defense of Blake Lively implicitly suggest that sexual harassment isn't worthy of academic study. Like is it worth studying who's likely to be a perpetrator? The circumstances that can lead to sexual harassment?

BL supporters love to argue over the minutiae of the case, but the big picture themes for me that cast huge doubt on Blake's claims are that she had the power to alter production (wardrobe changes, final cut, etc. ), some of the alleged sexual harassment occurred on Blake's domain at her request (e.g. her asking Heath to come to her trailer and asking him to turn around), and Blake and Ryan felt emboldened enough to scream at him and ask him to release a statement taking the fall for everything back in August.

I was under the impression that there's typically a power differential. The "even powerful woman can be sexually harassed" is something that I think is absolutely true, but that typically occurs when they're in a situation with someone even more powerful than them. But if anyone can be sexually harassed anywhere, and a woman's word is the only thing that counts, then you're kinda saying these questions don't matter.

Looking at everyone’s responses to this, I don’t really believe it was a sincere question, but was really just a circular argument posing as a question. “Blake was not powerless and received some concessions from Baldoni and therefore she couldn’t have been harassed, so really only powerless women should be believed” or some nonsense like that.

No. You’ve made your mind up not to believe Lively and that’s your choice, but maybe stop pretending you’re the side that is truly fighting for women here. You’re on the side that’s opposed to 15+ women’s rights orgs, and the side of the guy that filed a meritless defamation suit against the woman who accused him of harassment. That’s the side you chose here.

Huh, there was no actual question in here posed to BL supporters. I made an argument and included rhetorical questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

Funny you come across as insecure with a compulsive need to post here 24/7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

These women's organizations didn't want that California law turned over and blindly believe Blake given that they are women's organizations. Nothing to do with the validity of Blake's claims. I for one am thankful that Justin is standing up to billionaire liars like Blake and Ryan who have minimal talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the arguments that Blake supporters put forth in defense of Blake Lively implicitly suggest that sexual harassment isn't worthy of academic study. Like is it worth studying who's likely to be a perpetrator? The circumstances that can lead to sexual harassment?

BL supporters love to argue over the minutiae of the case, but the big picture themes for me that cast huge doubt on Blake's claims are that she had the power to alter production (wardrobe changes, final cut, etc. ), some of the alleged sexual harassment occurred on Blake's domain at her request (e.g. her asking Heath to come to her trailer and asking him to turn around), and Blake and Ryan felt emboldened enough to scream at him and ask him to release a statement taking the fall for everything back in August.

I was under the impression that there's typically a power differential. The "even powerful woman can be sexually harassed" is something that I think is absolutely true, but that typically occurs when they're in a situation with someone even more powerful than them. But if anyone can be sexually harassed anywhere, and a woman's word is the only thing that counts, then you're kinda saying these questions don't matter.

I thought the power differential that existed because Baldoni was Lively’s director is how he got Lively to be mostly nude from the waist down (except the briefs or nudity strip) during the birth scene when she hadn’t wanted that? And how he introduced kissing in the dance scene though it wasn’t scripted, since he was the director? And how he got Ferrer to simulate orgasm during the sex scene she filmed during the strike, though that wasn’t scripted, but he was the director?

I do think Baldoni had power over Lively as her director, especially when the movie first started. But I think Sony as distributor had power over Baldoni, and that as they defended Lively more, Baldoni perhaps lost some power (we, when he needed to sign the 17 point list or she would walk). And after that switch happened, the harassment also seemed to stop (though the smear started), so I draw my own conclusions from that too.

Blake having the power to alter wardrobe and make script changes and Ryan screaming at Justin happened at the start of the production.

Lively having power to do costumes with the wardrobe person was a power Baldoni gave her but didn’t have to. It was a power he had and gave away (in part to appease her and Sony).

Not sure what Baldoni’s lack of power over Reynolds has to do with his inherent power over Lively as her director. Isn’t this sort of like Brad Pitt taking Harvey Weinstein aside and telling him not to mess with Gwyneth Paltrow? Weinstein was still clearly a harasser.

So when Blake asks Justin to do something he doesn't want to do, it's "well, he didn't have to." But when Justin asks Blake to do something mild that she doesn't want to do, it's "he's a harasser." Got it. Rules for thee, but not for me, as per usual according to BL supporters.

Lady, he was the male director of the film trying to get the leading lady to be more naked in a scene than she wanted for a scene that was not written to have *any* nudity, actually. That’s pretty harass-y, as compared to having clothes delivered to her house. See the difference?

Lol this is debunked. She was hardly naked. Move on, loser. Your girl is toast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

Funny you call everyone ‘lady’.

And yes, we know there are two of you who tag team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

Funny you come across as insecure with a compulsive need to post here 24/7.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the arguments that Blake supporters put forth in defense of Blake Lively implicitly suggest that sexual harassment isn't worthy of academic study. Like is it worth studying who's likely to be a perpetrator? The circumstances that can lead to sexual harassment?

BL supporters love to argue over the minutiae of the case, but the big picture themes for me that cast huge doubt on Blake's claims are that she had the power to alter production (wardrobe changes, final cut, etc. ), some of the alleged sexual harassment occurred on Blake's domain at her request (e.g. her asking Heath to come to her trailer and asking him to turn around), and Blake and Ryan felt emboldened enough to scream at him and ask him to release a statement taking the fall for everything back in August.

I was under the impression that there's typically a power differential. The "even powerful woman can be sexually harassed" is something that I think is absolutely true, but that typically occurs when they're in a situation with someone even more powerful than them. But if anyone can be sexually harassed anywhere, and a woman's word is the only thing that counts, then you're kinda saying these questions don't matter.

I thought the power differential that existed because Baldoni was Lively’s director is how he got Lively to be mostly nude from the waist down (except the briefs or nudity strip) during the birth scene when she hadn’t wanted that? And how he introduced kissing in the dance scene though it wasn’t scripted, since he was the director? And how he got Ferrer to simulate orgasm during the sex scene she filmed during the strike, though that wasn’t scripted, but he was the director?

I do think Baldoni had power over Lively as her director, especially when the movie first started. But I think Sony as distributor had power over Baldoni, and that as they defended Lively more, Baldoni perhaps lost some power (we, when he needed to sign the 17 point list or she would walk). And after that switch happened, the harassment also seemed to stop (though the smear started), so I draw my own conclusions from that too.

Blake having the power to alter wardrobe and make script changes and Ryan screaming at Justin happened at the start of the production.

Lively having power to do costumes with the wardrobe person was a power Baldoni gave her but didn’t have to. It was a power he had and gave away (in part to appease her and Sony).

Not sure what Baldoni’s lack of power over Reynolds has to do with his inherent power over Lively as her director. Isn’t this sort of like Brad Pitt taking Harvey Weinstein aside and telling him not to mess with Gwyneth Paltrow? Weinstein was still clearly a harasser.

So when Blake asks Justin to do something he doesn't want to do, it's "well, he didn't have to." But when Justin asks Blake to do something mild that she doesn't want to do, it's "he's a harasser." Got it. Rules for thee, but not for me, as per usual according to BL supporters.

Lady, he was the male director of the film trying to get the leading lady to be more naked in a scene than she wanted for a scene that was not written to have *any* nudity, actually. That’s pretty harass-y, as compared to having clothes delivered to her house. See the difference?

There’s missing information here. You cannot tell me with a straight face that a male director asking a very, obviously not pregnant woman to be naked in a scene where he was supposed to be in active labor, and very pregnant, makes sense.

Explain exactly how she would be naked without us, realizing that she was not pregnant?

I really don’t understand the logistics - maybe he wanted a shot of her boobs? Obviously he didn’t want frontal nudity so let’s rule that out. Obviously she would have a big prosthetic belly so what you’re saying here is he wanted to get a shot of her breasts and she didn’t want that.

I really don’t see why that’s harassment. It is not out of the ordinary, especially if she had not turned in her nudity rider despite Wayfair asking her teams for it several times - isn’t the point of the rider to layout exactly but she was comfortable and not comfortable with. But she refused to do that while they were having that conversations. That seems really convenient to me.

Essentially, it seems like she was saying, I’m not going to say what I am or am not comfortable with, so if you ask me to do something and I’m not comfortable with all of a sudden im going to scream harassment and try to shut down the film.

And this is why Blake lively has a problem with the public right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the arguments that Blake supporters put forth in defense of Blake Lively implicitly suggest that sexual harassment isn't worthy of academic study. Like is it worth studying who's likely to be a perpetrator? The circumstances that can lead to sexual harassment?

BL supporters love to argue over the minutiae of the case, but the big picture themes for me that cast huge doubt on Blake's claims are that she had the power to alter production (wardrobe changes, final cut, etc. ), some of the alleged sexual harassment occurred on Blake's domain at her request (e.g. her asking Heath to come to her trailer and asking him to turn around), and Blake and Ryan felt emboldened enough to scream at him and ask him to release a statement taking the fall for everything back in August.

I was under the impression that there's typically a power differential. The "even powerful woman can be sexually harassed" is something that I think is absolutely true, but that typically occurs when they're in a situation with someone even more powerful than them. But if anyone can be sexually harassed anywhere, and a woman's word is the only thing that counts, then you're kinda saying these questions don't matter.

I thought the power differential that existed because Baldoni was Lively’s director is how he got Lively to be mostly nude from the waist down (except the briefs or nudity strip) during the birth scene when she hadn’t wanted that? And how he introduced kissing in the dance scene though it wasn’t scripted, since he was the director? And how he got Ferrer to simulate orgasm during the sex scene she filmed during the strike, though that wasn’t scripted, but he was the director?

I do think Baldoni had power over Lively as her director, especially when the movie first started. But I think Sony as distributor had power over Baldoni, and that as they defended Lively more, Baldoni perhaps lost some power (we, when he needed to sign the 17 point list or she would walk). And after that switch happened, the harassment also seemed to stop (though the smear started), so I draw my own conclusions from that too.

Blake having the power to alter wardrobe and make script changes and Ryan screaming at Justin happened at the start of the production.

Lively having power to do costumes with the wardrobe person was a power Baldoni gave her but didn’t have to. It was a power he had and gave away (in part to appease her and Sony).

Not sure what Baldoni’s lack of power over Reynolds has to do with his inherent power over Lively as her director. Isn’t this sort of like Brad Pitt taking Harvey Weinstein aside and telling him not to mess with Gwyneth Paltrow? Weinstein was still clearly a harasser.

So when Blake asks Justin to do something he doesn't want to do, it's "well, he didn't have to." But when Justin asks Blake to do something mild that she doesn't want to do, it's "he's a harasser." Got it. Rules for thee, but not for me, as per usual according to BL supporters.

Lady, he was the male director of the film trying to get the leading lady to be more naked in a scene than she wanted for a scene that was not written to have *any* nudity, actually. That’s pretty harass-y, as compared to having clothes delivered to her house. See the difference?

There’s missing information here. You cannot tell me with a straight face that a male director asking a very, obviously not pregnant woman to be naked in a scene where he was supposed to be in active labor, and very pregnant, makes sense.

Explain exactly how she would be naked without us, realizing that she was not pregnant?

I really don’t understand the logistics - maybe he wanted a shot of her boobs? Obviously he didn’t want frontal nudity so let’s rule that out. Obviously she would have a big prosthetic belly so what you’re saying here is he wanted to get a shot of her breasts and she didn’t want that.

I really don’t see why that’s harassment. It is not out of the ordinary, especially if she had not turned in her nudity rider despite Wayfair asking her teams for it several times - isn’t the point of the rider to layout exactly but she was comfortable and not comfortable with. But she refused to do that while they were having that conversations. That seems really convenient to me.

Essentially, it seems like she was saying, I’m not going to say what I am or am not comfortable with, so if you ask me to do something and I’m not comfortable with all of a sudden im going to scream harassment and try to shut down the film.

And this is why Blake lively has a problem with the public right now.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attorney Maxwell Breed has filed a response on behalf on the two non-party TAG employees/former employees, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

These are the TAG people who Lively offered to pay the costs of hosting and producing their docs to enable them to produce them, but later could not agree on terms and dates etc.

I thought a little fun thing about this is that his deadline is today, and he filed his letter after hours, at like 9:30 EST. His letter refers to a declaration and nine exhibits, which were not attached. So it was weird when nothing more got filed on the docket until about 15 minutes ago: The declaration!

So he and/or his paralegal have about 45 minutes to get those remaining 9 exhibits filed. Unless there is some lag between CourtListener and Pacer (I haven't noticed that before). Good luck Mr. Breed!

His letter seems pretty reasonable TBH.

I don’t think he’s correct that Lively’s offer to pay the costs of hosting and producing the docs for the production means that the requests as written were overbroad. I think it just means Lively wants a real production with metadata and not a bunch of screen shots of texts.

I do agree it’s overbroad to require texts on which parties are included, and thought Lively agreed not to include those. But then Breed also demanded nothing from after 12/2024 be produced! Liman has already agreed Lively should get communications from after the lawsuit was filed, from the party PR reps, anyway. So I think he’ll be required to produce the later tests.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attorney Maxwell Breed has filed a response on behalf on the two non-party TAG employees/former employees, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

These are the TAG people who Lively offered to pay the costs of hosting and producing their docs to enable them to produce them, but later could not agree on terms and dates etc.

I thought a little fun thing about this is that his deadline is today, and he filed his letter after hours, at like 9:30 EST. His letter refers to a declaration and nine exhibits, which were not attached. So it was weird when nothing more got filed on the docket until about 15 minutes ago: The declaration!

So he and/or his paralegal have about 45 minutes to get those remaining 9 exhibits filed. Unless there is some lag between CourtListener and Pacer (I haven't noticed that before). Good luck Mr. Breed!

His letter seems pretty reasonable TBH.

I don’t think he’s correct that Lively’s offer to pay the costs of hosting and producing the docs for the production means that the requests as written were overbroad. I think it just means Lively wants a real production with metadata and not a bunch of screen shots of texts.

I do agree it’s overbroad to require texts on which parties are included, and thought Lively agreed not to include those. But then Breed also demanded nothing from after 12/2024 be produced! Liman has already agreed Lively should get communications from after the lawsuit was filed, from the party PR reps, anyway. So I think he’ll be required to produce the later tests.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attorney Maxwell Breed has filed a response on behalf on the two non-party TAG employees/former employees, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

These are the TAG people who Lively offered to pay the costs of hosting and producing their docs to enable them to produce them, but later could not agree on terms and dates etc.

I thought a little fun thing about this is that his deadline is today, and he filed his letter after hours, at like 9:30 EST. His letter refers to a declaration and nine exhibits, which were not attached. So it was weird when nothing more got filed on the docket until about 15 minutes ago: The declaration!

So he and/or his paralegal have about 45 minutes to get those remaining 9 exhibits filed. Unless there is some lag between CourtListener and Pacer (I haven't noticed that before). Good luck Mr. Breed!

His letter seems pretty reasonable TBH.

I don’t think he’s correct that Lively’s offer to pay the costs of hosting and producing the docs for the production means that the requests as written were overbroad. I think it just means Lively wants a real production with metadata and not a bunch of screen shots of texts.

I do agree it’s overbroad to require texts on which parties are included, and thought Lively agreed not to include those. But then Breed also demanded nothing from after 12/2024 be produced! Liman has already agreed Lively should get communications from after the lawsuit was filed, from the party PR reps, anyway. So I think he’ll be required to produce the later tests.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

These women's organizations didn't want that California law turned over and blindly believe Blake given that they are women's organizations. Nothing to do with the validity of Blake's claims. I for one am thankful that Justin is standing up to billionaire liars like Blake and Ryan who have minimal talent.

Oh wow, vague "women's orgs"?! In other words, 501(c)(3) rackets reliant on donors if not also large sums of public dollars? Please post links to the Form 990s of all 15+ orgs "on her side."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

These women's organizations didn't want that California law turned over and blindly believe Blake given that they are women's organizations. Nothing to do with the validity of Blake's claims. I for one am thankful that Justin is standing up to billionaire liars like Blake and Ryan who have minimal talent.

Oh wow, vague "women's orgs"?! In other words, 501(c)(3) rackets reliant on donors if not also large sums of public dollars? Please post links to the Form 990s of all 15+ orgs "on her side."

When your male feminist hero is telling the National Organization for Women to shut up already (I guess he has a better grasp on how all "normal women" should deal with harassment lol), you might wonder if you've picked the wrong team. But no.