Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

It's a fairly good argument from Sloane, especially how Wayfarer's side was refusing to give the reporter's name (just an unknown reporter from DM even though they clearly did know) and then pretending they had additional information that had come to light about Sloane, which they never identified. All a giant waste of time.

So I guess she did get his texts with BF, but that is confusing and doesn't really help her case. And it's odd that it's undated. For all we know he sent it when he got the subpoena, well after the suit was filed.

I imagine Lively is also going to have a strong argument based on being a victim and the chilling effect on survivors, etc. Not sure what they can really do to make Reynolds seem sympathetic... he got out of the case due to actual malice, but otherwise, it wasn't so unreasonable to sue him for calling JB a sexual predator and possibly getting him dropped from WME (I guess they'll wait and see if the complaint is amended today before he makes his motion). I guess they may file Lively's motion before Reynolds, but for the MTDs I think they saved her for last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vituscka’w text says don’t put me in the lawsuit because it would be bad for my career. It literally says nothing about his statement being false. It does however, suggest he’s a man who would change his testimony to avoid testifying in court.

Yeah. Exactly. And this is probably why he’s shifted counsel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vituscka’w text says don’t put me in the lawsuit because it would be bad for my career. It literally says nothing about his statement being false. It does however, suggest he’s a man who would change his testimony to avoid testifying in court.

Yeah. Exactly. And this is probably why he’s shifted counsel

Sloane already filed a declaration from Vituscka saying his statement was false/misinterpreted, that was a week or two ago. It's cited again in the papers filed today, if you read them (just not refiled again).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vituscka’w text says don’t put me in the lawsuit because it would be bad for my career. It literally says nothing about his statement being false. It does however, suggest he’s a man who would change his testimony to avoid testifying in court.

Yeah. Exactly. And this is probably why he’s shifted counsel

Sloane already filed a declaration from Vituscka saying his statement was false/misinterpreted, that was a week or two ago. It's cited again in the papers filed today, if you read them (just not refiled again).

Yeah, exactly. He’s changed his story. That does not come across as credible. He said what he said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vituscka’w text says don’t put me in the lawsuit because it would be bad for my career. It literally says nothing about his statement being false. It does however, suggest he’s a man who would change his testimony to avoid testifying in court.

Yeah. Exactly. And this is probably why he’s shifted counsel

Sloane already filed a declaration from Vituscka saying his statement was false/misinterpreted, that was a week or two ago. It's cited again in the papers filed today, if you read them (just not refiled again).

Yeah, exactly. He’s changed his story. That does not come across as credible. He said what he said

In that case, we should be getting a declaration from Freedman saying that of course he checked with Vituscka before he filed his complaint and Vituscka said Sloane said Baldoni sexually assaulted Lively. Wouldn't put it past him tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vituscka’w text says don’t put me in the lawsuit because it would be bad for my career. It literally says nothing about his statement being false. It does however, suggest he’s a man who would change his testimony to avoid testifying in court.

Yeah. Exactly. And this is probably why he’s shifted counsel

Sloane already filed a declaration from Vituscka saying his statement was false/misinterpreted, that was a week or two ago. It's cited again in the papers filed today, if you read them (just not refiled again).

Yeah, exactly. He’s changed his story. That does not come across as credible. He said what he said

In that case, we should be getting a declaration from Freedman saying that of course he checked with Vituscka before he filed his complaint and Vituscka said Sloane said Baldoni sexually assaulted Lively. Wouldn't put it past him tbh.

Oh you think he needs to double and triple check? That’s not how the law works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vituscka’w text says don’t put me in the lawsuit because it would be bad for my career. It literally says nothing about his statement being false. It does however, suggest he’s a man who would change his testimony to avoid testifying in court.

Yeah. Exactly. And this is probably why he’s shifted counsel

Sloane already filed a declaration from Vituscka saying his statement was false/misinterpreted, that was a week or two ago. It's cited again in the papers filed today, if you read them (just not refiled again).

Yeah, exactly. He’s changed his story. That does not come across as credible. He said what he said

In that case, we should be getting a declaration from Freedman saying that of course he checked with Vituscka before he filed his complaint and Vituscka said Sloane said Baldoni sexually assaulted Lively. Wouldn't put it past him tbh.

Oh you think he needs to double and triple check? That’s not how the law works.

Oh okay you think this motion for fees and costs is baseless? Let's see then.

[Anonymous]

Do you all think the amended complaint will drop in the next hour and if so is that strategic or do they really need every bit of time? I wonder if Blake's depo happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all think the amended complaint will drop in the next hour and if so is that strategic or do they really need every bit of time? I wonder if Blake's depo happened.

I dislike Freedman but yes, it's not unusual for attorneys to run the clock to the last minute in high stakes litigation getting everything as "set" as possible. I think it will be filed in the next hour -- or not at all. It's been pretty quiet today from both the Baldoni and the Lively sides (Sloane has her own counsel), so it's possible Lively's dep happened. There hasn't been a news release about it afaict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you all think the amended complaint will drop in the next hour and if so is that strategic or do they really need every bit of time? I wonder if Blake's depo happened.

I dislike Freedman but yes, it's not unusual for attorneys to run the clock to the last minute in high stakes litigation getting everything as "set" as possible. I think it will be filed in the next hour -- or not at all. It's been pretty quiet today from both the Baldoni and the Lively sides (Sloane has her own counsel), so it's possible Lively's dep happened. There hasn't been a news release about it afaict.

lol. Or, maybe not?

[Anonymous]

Ooh, people on the lawsuits subreddit are mad.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1lj1hwc/no_amended_pleading_filed_1201am_et/

[Anonymous]

They've built a passionate fan base and really should have at least issued a press statement before the deadline just explaining rhey decided not to pursue those claims but they're fighting and etc.

[Anonymous]

Another theory due to the PR radio silence about the dep that was supposed to happen yesterday and the lack of a SAC is they really are in serious settlement talks this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ooh, people on the lawsuits subreddit are mad.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1lj1hwc/no_amended_pleading_filed_1201am_et/

Continuing on this theme, here are some of the main posts from the lawsuits subreddit over the last 11 hours:

* "What does it mean when someone loses in actual court but then says they 'won in the court of public opinion'?"
* "Freedman Gaslit Everyone"
* "No SAC and what I see"
* "Team Baldoni and Team Blake"
* "Justin's Supporters Today (Including Myself)" [followed by series of WOMP WOMP pictures]
* "Scott Swift - who's lying"
* "Updates on deposition or case today?"
* "Where is the PR"
* "Bryan Freedman, please go scorched earth"
* "Even IF BL win or drop her case, where you stand?"
* "No Amended Complaint: Settlement/Timeline of Relevant Events?"
* "Before we panic: Wayfarer's three options were Appeal, Amend, or Defend"
* "Congrats to Blake Lively"
* "Did Baldoni's Counsel Fail Him Here?"
* "No Amended Pleading filed (12:01am ET)"

[Anonymous]

I find it fascinated people are so worked up at the lack of an amended complaint. It seems like a totally rational decision to me. They only had two claims they could make at this point, and neither were worth a lot of money (because the movie made a ton of money) and would have been hard to prove. Both are contract-based and I suspect that the contracts do not support the claims anyway, which is why they didn't include the contract or terms in their original complaint.

So the case is back to being about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, which it always was? If Baldoni is innocent of these, that should come out in discovery. I don't quite understand why people are so upset. Baldoni's claims against Lively and others were always really weak and were clearly intended largely to change the narrative and get Baldoni's perspective on what happened out in public, something it's harder to do when just acting as a defendant.

Also I feel pretty confident that either Lively showed for her deposition or Baldoni's side asked for a reschedule. If Lively was a no show or tried to reschedule, Freedman would be all over the news with that.