Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wayfarer got BTFO on the big motion to compel. They got the February 2025 cutoff and some limitations on no SH discrimination but Lively got basically everything else and Liman methodically pointed out lots of deficiencies in WF production and legal reasoning, in a well reasoned decision.

It's so beautiful. The schadenfreude whenever this legal team bites it is glorious. WF's arguments throughout most of this were so, so stupid. The Signal communications request was untimely because the request was new? Dudes. Those docs were first requested months ago and you just deliberately misread the request so as to exclude Signal docs even though they clearly are "communications" lol. That's absolutely on you.

Hard to imagine what WF's overall plan here is. Did anyone see my earlier comment about Freedman not even introducing any exhibits or videos during the Lively deposition? Honestly this is bordering on malpractice at this point imho. Good luck, Jason.

[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:Taylor knows Blake’s lying and wants nothing to do with it. Sorry Blake fans.

Hmmm what is the psychology of Blake here? Why would she risk her BFF status with Taylor over a movie? Or did she not think through the possible consequences?

Blake was getting increasingly desperate.

She had not anticipated that Justin Baldoni would fight back and release his website about the case. The full context of Blake’s texts were exposed and they did not paint Taylor Swift in a flattering light. Blake basically told Justin that she could use Taylor to destroy him. Blake compared herself to Khaleese and Taylor as her dragon that she could manipulate.

While, the information on the website probably gave Taylor pause, I don’t think it would have been enough to end the relationship so definitively.

The final straw was Blake threatening Taylor. Blake was facing a big backlash and she wanted to be seen publicly with Taylor at the Superbowl to improve public perception. Taylor said no, and Blake threatened to release their texts unless she acquiesced. That was the turning point when Taylor began communicating with Blake through her lawyers. Photos of Blake and Taylor were scrubbed from Taylor’s instagram and Kelce publicly unfollowed Blake’s husband.

I generally agree with this. Swift has every right to be angry that her name was used in that way and that Lively and her lawyers threatened her (if that's true). I don't think a) Swift being angry at Lively means Swift doesn't believe Lively's allegations and b) that it matters at all whether she believes Lively. It's on Lively to prove those allegations, Swift wasn't on set and has no knowledge whether Baldoni and Heath SHed Lively and certainly no knowledge of whatever TAG and Wallace did (if they did anything).

And I just really doubt Swift would sit around reading Baldoni's website with his legal complaint. I guess she has people who monitor such things and report the gist? I imagine the online chatter about how it was received would be more important to Swift than the actual lawsuit info.

Come on, if she believed her friend was SH and retaliated against she would not be acting this way. Taylor is the queen of girls girls, whether it’s true or a perception, that’s how she is known so it definitely stands out that she has been silent from the beginning.

The shutting out of Blake happened well before the Superbowl. It’s just pretty clear Taylor doesn’t either buy it or thinks that Blake had enough problematic behavior on set and with Justin that this was going to get messy. She wanted to stay out of it from the beginning for a reason.

No one is saying Taylor sat and read the website. But you don’t think her name being in the website is going to get back to her instantly? Of course she has people monitoring this kind of thing and of course they told her. And of course she’d be pissed about it. She probably knows her friends and Blake use her for clout on occasion but to see it laid out so directly, actually implying that Taylor would be a threat if JB didn’t comply with Blake, is a whole other level.

PP - Yeah, what I'm saying is I agree she has people who monitor and report back on stuff like mentions of her name in the suit, or just generally "the internet is trending against Blake/for Baldoni." But I don't think it gets to the level of detail of "oh, Baldoni has all these texts contradicting X, Y, and Z from her complaint that rebut her harassment allegations." So I don't think her attitude is a reflection on whether she believes Lively or knows anything about how Lively acted on set.

You are delusional. No one, even Taylor Swift, has no opinion on a close friend who is alleging sexual harassment in a major case.

Sexual harassment isn’t exactly rare. What woman alive hasn’t been sexually harassed? It’s not that much of a stretch to believe it happened and the smear campaign seems obvious.

So you are saying when Taylor found out she was SH she said well it’s happened to everyone so I’m not going to support you? That makes no sense.

SH is extremely common but not for women who have extreme power and are married to one of the most powerful men in the industry, from a newish director who has significantly less power than you.

And what woman who is SH deals with it by going full on mean girl, turning the cast against you, taking over the movie and banning you from the poster and premiere. Taylor saw through this.

Please. Baldoni knows what he did and wanted to come out ahead of it to acknowledge his different brain. That wouldn’t take into account who someone was married to, he has poor social skills no matter who he talks to.

This is word salad. But no matter, Blake has lost the public.

The public largely has moved on and could not care less. This is a fringe issue for a few obsessives.

Lol okay. No one believes for one second her team saw this coming. They miscalculated and it’s too late to turn back. It’s even affecting Ryan now and I thought he was teflon.

Nobody cares. It’s obvious Blake is going to win, and people will care even less than they do now in a year or whenever this finally goes to trial. People have short attention spans and enough time has been spent on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wayfarer got BTFO on the big motion to compel. They got the February 2025 cutoff and some limitations on no SH discrimination but Lively got basically everything else and Liman methodically pointed out lots of deficiencies in WF production and legal reasoning, in a well reasoned decision.

It's so beautiful. The schadenfreude whenever this legal team bites it is glorious. WF's arguments throughout most of this were so, so stupid. The Signal communications request was untimely because the request was new? Dudes. Those docs were first requested months ago and you just deliberately misread the request so as to exclude Signal docs even though they clearly are "communications" lol. That's absolutely on you.

Hard to imagine what WF's overall plan here is. Did anyone see my earlier comment about Freedman not even introducing any exhibits or videos during the Lively deposition? Honestly this is bordering on malpractice at this point imho. Good luck, Jason.

PP. My favorite argument was the WF kindergarten whine that " if we have to do it, Lively does too!!!" And the judge was like but you didn't file an MTC nor identify any deficiencies whatsoever in her production, whereas you all didn't even include evidence cited in your own complaint. It is truly embarrassing lawyering. I posted a few days ago that while I could understand hiring that team initially for the PR, I can't understand why they haven't changed by now. Sarowitz is probably going to have to use his own money now instead of their insurance.

[Anonymous]

It seemed like with Ryan’s explosion in popularity, Blake was really securing her spot as the #1 BFF but I guess Blake couldn’t handle the bright lights.

I don’t doubt Blake was SH by Baldoni. But I think she thought she was untouchable with Taylor and Ryan in her corner.

[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:Taylor knows Blake’s lying and wants nothing to do with it. Sorry Blake fans.

Hmmm what is the psychology of Blake here? Why would she risk her BFF status with Taylor over a movie? Or did she not think through the possible consequences?

Blake was getting increasingly desperate.

She had not anticipated that Justin Baldoni would fight back and release his website about the case. The full context of Blake’s texts were exposed and they did not paint Taylor Swift in a flattering light. Blake basically told Justin that she could use Taylor to destroy him. Blake compared herself to Khaleese and Taylor as her dragon that she could manipulate.

While, the information on the website probably gave Taylor pause, I don’t think it would have been enough to end the relationship so definitively.

The final straw was Blake threatening Taylor. Blake was facing a big backlash and she wanted to be seen publicly with Taylor at the Superbowl to improve public perception. Taylor said no, and Blake threatened to release their texts unless she acquiesced. That was the turning point when Taylor began communicating with Blake through her lawyers. Photos of Blake and Taylor were scrubbed from Taylor’s instagram and Kelce publicly unfollowed Blake’s husband.

I generally agree with this. Swift has every right to be angry that her name was used in that way and that Lively and her lawyers threatened her (if that's true). I don't think a) Swift being angry at Lively means Swift doesn't believe Lively's allegations and b) that it matters at all whether she believes Lively. It's on Lively to prove those allegations, Swift wasn't on set and has no knowledge whether Baldoni and Heath SHed Lively and certainly no knowledge of whatever TAG and Wallace did (if they did anything).

And I just really doubt Swift would sit around reading Baldoni's website with his legal complaint. I guess she has people who monitor such things and report the gist? I imagine the online chatter about how it was received would be more important to Swift than the actual lawsuit info.

Come on, if she believed her friend was SH and retaliated against she would not be acting this way. Taylor is the queen of girls girls, whether it’s true or a perception, that’s how she is known so it definitely stands out that she has been silent from the beginning.

The shutting out of Blake happened well before the Superbowl. It’s just pretty clear Taylor doesn’t either buy it or thinks that Blake had enough problematic behavior on set and with Justin that this was going to get messy. She wanted to stay out of it from the beginning for a reason.

No one is saying Taylor sat and read the website. But you don’t think her name being in the website is going to get back to her instantly? Of course she has people monitoring this kind of thing and of course they told her. And of course she’d be pissed about it. She probably knows her friends and Blake use her for clout on occasion but to see it laid out so directly, actually implying that Taylor would be a threat if JB didn’t comply with Blake, is a whole other level.

PP - Yeah, what I'm saying is I agree she has people who monitor and report back on stuff like mentions of her name in the suit, or just generally "the internet is trending against Blake/for Baldoni." But I don't think it gets to the level of detail of "oh, Baldoni has all these texts contradicting X, Y, and Z from her complaint that rebut her harassment allegations." So I don't think her attitude is a reflection on whether she believes Lively or knows anything about how Lively acted on set.

You are delusional. No one, even Taylor Swift, has no opinion on a close friend who is alleging sexual harassment in a major case.

Sexual harassment isn’t exactly rare. What woman alive hasn’t been sexually harassed? It’s not that much of a stretch to believe it happened and the smear campaign seems obvious.

So you are saying when Taylor found out she was SH she said well it’s happened to everyone so I’m not going to support you? That makes no sense.

SH is extremely common but not for women who have extreme power and are married to one of the most powerful men in the industry, from a newish director who has significantly less power than you.

And what woman who is SH deals with it by going full on mean girl, turning the cast against you, taking over the movie and banning you from the poster and premiere. Taylor saw through this.

Please. Baldoni knows what he did and wanted to come out ahead of it to acknowledge his different brain. That wouldn’t take into account who someone was married to, he has poor social skills no matter who he talks to.

This is word salad. But no matter, Blake has lost the public.

The public largely has moved on and could not care less. This is a fringe issue for a few obsessives.

Lol okay. No one believes for one second her team saw this coming. They miscalculated and it’s too late to turn back. It’s even affecting Ryan now and I thought he was teflon.

Dp, but you got Arlington mom so distraught she’s gloating about a motion to compel. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From yesterday, WF responded to Jones’ surreply (filed without leave of the Court) on attorney) fees. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.705.0.pdf

Many solid legal arguments here, but perhaps most noteworthy to this thread, the text excerpt at least one Blake supporter here was claiming to be new and a game changer wasn’t new at all and was in fact cited by Jones in her previous filings.

Wow, she spent three pages going off about the “new” text. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

Filed this evening

[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:Taylor knows Blake’s lying and wants nothing to do with it. Sorry Blake fans.

Hmmm what is the psychology of Blake here? Why would she risk her BFF status with Taylor over a movie? Or did she not think through the possible consequences?

Blake was getting increasingly desperate.

She had not anticipated that Justin Baldoni would fight back and release his website about the case. The full context of Blake’s texts were exposed and they did not paint Taylor Swift in a flattering light. Blake basically told Justin that she could use Taylor to destroy him. Blake compared herself to Khaleese and Taylor as her dragon that she could manipulate.

While, the information on the website probably gave Taylor pause, I don’t think it would have been enough to end the relationship so definitively.

The final straw was Blake threatening Taylor. Blake was facing a big backlash and she wanted to be seen publicly with Taylor at the Superbowl to improve public perception. Taylor said no, and Blake threatened to release their texts unless she acquiesced. That was the turning point when Taylor began communicating with Blake through her lawyers. Photos of Blake and Taylor were scrubbed from Taylor’s instagram and Kelce publicly unfollowed Blake’s husband.

I generally agree with this. Swift has every right to be angry that her name was used in that way and that Lively and her lawyers threatened her (if that's true). I don't think a) Swift being angry at Lively means Swift doesn't believe Lively's allegations and b) that it matters at all whether she believes Lively. It's on Lively to prove those allegations, Swift wasn't on set and has no knowledge whether Baldoni and Heath SHed Lively and certainly no knowledge of whatever TAG and Wallace did (if they did anything).

And I just really doubt Swift would sit around reading Baldoni's website with his legal complaint. I guess she has people who monitor such things and report the gist? I imagine the online chatter about how it was received would be more important to Swift than the actual lawsuit info.

Come on, if she believed her friend was SH and retaliated against she would not be acting this way. Taylor is the queen of girls girls, whether it’s true or a perception, that’s how she is known so it definitely stands out that she has been silent from the beginning.

The shutting out of Blake happened well before the Superbowl. It’s just pretty clear Taylor doesn’t either buy it or thinks that Blake had enough problematic behavior on set and with Justin that this was going to get messy. She wanted to stay out of it from the beginning for a reason.

No one is saying Taylor sat and read the website. But you don’t think her name being in the website is going to get back to her instantly? Of course she has people monitoring this kind of thing and of course they told her. And of course she’d be pissed about it. She probably knows her friends and Blake use her for clout on occasion but to see it laid out so directly, actually implying that Taylor would be a threat if JB didn’t comply with Blake, is a whole other level.

PP - Yeah, what I'm saying is I agree she has people who monitor and report back on stuff like mentions of her name in the suit, or just generally "the internet is trending against Blake/for Baldoni." But I don't think it gets to the level of detail of "oh, Baldoni has all these texts contradicting X, Y, and Z from her complaint that rebut her harassment allegations." So I don't think her attitude is a reflection on whether she believes Lively or knows anything about how Lively acted on set.

You are delusional. No one, even Taylor Swift, has no opinion on a close friend who is alleging sexual harassment in a major case.

Sexual harassment isn’t exactly rare. What woman alive hasn’t been sexually harassed? It’s not that much of a stretch to believe it happened and the smear campaign seems obvious.

So you are saying when Taylor found out she was SH she said well it’s happened to everyone so I’m not going to support you? That makes no sense.

SH is extremely common but not for women who have extreme power and are married to one of the most powerful men in the industry, from a newish director who has significantly less power than you.

And what woman who is SH deals with it by going full on mean girl, turning the cast against you, taking over the movie and banning you from the poster and premiere. Taylor saw through this.

Please. Baldoni knows what he did and wanted to come out ahead of it to acknowledge his different brain. That wouldn’t take into account who someone was married to, he has poor social skills no matter who he talks to.

This is word salad. But no matter, Blake has lost the public.

The public largely has moved on and could not care less. This is a fringe issue for a few obsessives.

Lol okay. No one believes for one second her team saw this coming. They miscalculated and it’s too late to turn back. It’s even affecting Ryan now and I thought he was teflon.

Dp, but you got Arlington mom so distraught she’s gloating about a motion to compel. Sad.

Excuse me, it's an OMNIBUS motion to compel. This means that, like all the places that Stefan recommends, it has EVERYTHING:

Communications with Jed Wallace;
phone records;
personnel policies;
Freedman communications before 12/31/24;
IEWU footag[/img]e videos with voice mixed in;
THE WGA WAIVER;
duplicates of docs produced by others;
Document 310 from the privilege log;
re-runs of the redacted docs showing the reason for redactions;
docs cited in the amended complaint but not yet produced like the birth video (!!!);
search terms;
docs from 12/20/2024 to 2/18/2025;
Signal docs;
and Freedman communications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From yesterday, WF responded to Jones’ surreply (filed without leave of the Court) on attorney) fees. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.705.0.pdf

Many solid legal arguments here, but perhaps most noteworthy to this thread, the text excerpt at least one Blake supporter here was claiming to be new and a game changer wasn’t new at all and was in fact cited by Jones in her previous filings.

Wow, she spent three pages going off about the “new” text. Oh well.

Lol, your side kept saying "we don't understand, can you explain again?" and then "OMG, she went on and on for pages!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

Pretty sure we know he was included on some Signal communications, so that means he deleted everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

It's nice for Wallace that he both has a brain and good counsel, unlike the Wayfarer parties. Lively can argue til she's blue in the face that he maybe should have thought he might get sued, but he wisely used an app that auto deleted while there were no claims pending against him. If it's not there then it's not there. I am intrigued how he mentioned his "team" and used the plural form multiple times in reference to his experts but swears up and down he never hired or paid anyone. He's either telling the truth or very sure of his methods. I think Liman will rule against him again on the client list, which I disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

Pretty sure we know he was included on some Signal communications, so that means he deleted everything.

Wouldn't that be spoliation? Seems bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From yesterday, WF responded to Jones’ surreply (filed without leave of the Court) on attorney) fees. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.705.0.pdf

Many solid legal arguments here, but perhaps most noteworthy to this thread, the text excerpt at least one Blake supporter here was claiming to be new and a game changer wasn’t new at all and was in fact cited by Jones in her previous filings.

Wow, she spent three pages going off about the “new” text. Oh well.

Lol, your side kept saying "we don't understand, can you explain again?" and then "OMG, she went on and on for pages!"

Because she was wrong. But she’ll never admit it. But the text was old and already in the possession of Lively and Jones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

Pretty sure we know he was included on some Signal communications, so that means he deleted everything.

Signal has a “disappear” function that causes messages to self delete (on all devices) after a certain amount of time. Do Blake’s attorneys not know how it works? They aren’t getting anything useful from discovery on Signal, if it ever existed.