Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

[Anonymous]

There is a huge difference between someone like that Popcorn Planet guy who apparently posted an exclusive comment from Freedman and therefore is in contact with a Wayfarer party/counsel, and randomly requesting records JUST because someone said negative things. The google records aren't going to prove whether those people were in communication with Wayfarer, so then BL will have to subpoena their bank records, etc. That is too much. What if they had a garage sale and deposited some cash - are they supposed to prove it didn't come from Bryan Freedman?

You can't prove a negative (ie prove the CC wasn't paid off or seeded content by Freedman/Wayfarer) so they can just theoretically keeping looking and looking into these people until they find something. That is insane. The onus should be on BL's team to prove a nexus between the CC and Freedman/Wayfarer as an initial matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The content creators aren't being sued for defamation though, this is just evidence gathering. I have no sympathy for Perez or Candace but some of these CC are very small and some are making videos from their bedrooms. I would really like to know how they were chosen. I know they asked Wayfarer for a list of content creators. If they are trying to get evidence from those who were named and have some actual link to the Wayfarer or Wallace parties, that is one thing, but if they are just going to subpoena CC because they were negative about BL, I am not saying that is illegal, but it really is disgusting.

I do feel for the smaller CCs who just started talking about this case because it was high profile and now may worry they need a lawyer or may be burdened by discovery in a way that could be really difficult for a regular person. Like you I have zero empathy for Candace Owens or Perez Hilton. There's also a creator named Without a Crystal Ball on Reddit and I wouldn't care if she was subpoenaed -- she's crazy unreliable and just spews gossip. I'm okay with there be consequences for that behavior.

I am taking a wait and see approach on this though. The CCs may genuinely be very central to the case. BL wants to show that Baldoni et al set out to push a negative narrative about Blake online, in order to discredit her, both in retaliation for her complaints about Baldoni's/Heath's behavior and also so that people wouldn't believe her if she went public with her complaints. Baldoni's argument thus far has been that he and his side didn't need to push a negative narrative about Blake because people organically and spontaneously started talking negatively about her based on her own actions.

Right now it is honestly impossible to know which of those two narrative is true. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Lively committed a number of own goals on the PR front, most notably with her tone-deaf comments on DV and her efforts to promote her booze and haircare products during the IEWU promotion. Certainly some portion of the negative commentary around her is organic.

However, you cannot ignore the texts where Baldoni quite clearly seems to be asking Abel and Nathan to use PR to create a negative narrative about Blake online. Or the texts where Abel and Nathan seem to take credit for the negative narrative, or credit the work by Wallace and his team. This is pretty compelling evidence that at least some of the negative commentary online was driven by Abel/TAG/Wallace at Baldoni's request, which supports the retaliation claim.

Given those competing narratives, talking to CCs about their content and looking to see when the negative commentary about Blake started and what spurred it is of central importance to BOTH cases. It doesn't necessarily even benefit BL. Perhaps investigating this will reveal that the CCs were responding only to BL's own behavior, which would help prove Baldoni's case that the negative narrative was organic.

But it's relevant. Whether it supports BL's case or Baldoni's. So while I do feel for the smaller creators who never anticipated dealing with something like this, it's just so central to the case that I'd like to see where it goes before I start yelling that it's unfair. This is at the heart of the case.

I
One or two ambiguous texts don’t justify this degree of discovery. Blake is very very lucky to have gotten Liman but the creators can oppose the subpoenas in their home jurisdictions. Make Blake spend the money to defend them everywhere.

It will be interesting to see how hard the BigLaw firms fight the content creators, especially the pro se ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The content creators aren't being sued for defamation though, this is just evidence gathering. I have no sympathy for Perez or Candace but some of these CC are very small and some are making videos from their bedrooms. I would really like to know how they were chosen. I know they asked Wayfarer for a list of content creators. If they are trying to get evidence from those who were named and have some actual link to the Wayfarer or Wallace parties, that is one thing, but if they are just going to subpoena CC because they were negative about BL, I am not saying that is illegal, but it really is disgusting.

I do feel for the smaller CCs who just started talking about this case because it was high profile and now may worry they need a lawyer or may be burdened by discovery in a way that could be really difficult for a regular person. Like you I have zero empathy for Candace Owens or Perez Hilton. There's also a creator named Without a Crystal Ball on Reddit and I wouldn't care if she was subpoenaed -- she's crazy unreliable and just spews gossip. I'm okay with there be consequences for that behavior.

I am taking a wait and see approach on this though. The CCs may genuinely be very central to the case. BL wants to show that Baldoni et al set out to push a negative narrative about Blake online, in order to discredit her, both in retaliation for her complaints about Baldoni's/Heath's behavior and also so that people wouldn't believe her if she went public with her complaints. Baldoni's argument thus far has been that he and his side didn't need to push a negative narrative about Blake because people organically and spontaneously started talking negatively about her based on her own actions.

Right now it is honestly impossible to know which of those two narrative is true. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Lively committed a number of own goals on the PR front, most notably with her tone-deaf comments on DV and her efforts to promote her booze and haircare products during the IEWU promotion. Certainly some portion of the negative commentary around her is organic.

However, you cannot ignore the texts where Baldoni quite clearly seems to be asking Abel and Nathan to use PR to create a negative narrative about Blake online. Or the texts where Abel and Nathan seem to take credit for the negative narrative, or credit the work by Wallace and his team. This is pretty compelling evidence that at least some of the negative commentary online was driven by Abel/TAG/Wallace at Baldoni's request, which supports the retaliation claim.

Given those competing narratives, talking to CCs about their content and looking to see when the negative commentary about Blake started and what spurred it is of central importance to BOTH cases. It doesn't necessarily even benefit BL. Perhaps investigating this will reveal that the CCs were responding only to BL's own behavior, which would help prove Baldoni's case that the negative narrative was organic.

But it's relevant. Whether it supports BL's case or Baldoni's. So while I do feel for the smaller creators who never anticipated dealing with something like this, it's just so central to the case that I'd like to see where it goes before I start yelling that it's unfair. This is at the heart of the case.

I
One or two ambiguous texts don’t justify this degree of discovery. Blake is very very lucky to have gotten Liman but the creators can oppose the subpoenas in their home jurisdictions. Make Blake spend the money to defend them everywhere.

It will be interesting to see how hard the BigLaw firms fight the content creators, especially the pro se ones.

Ummmm yes one or two ambiguous texts do mean that you are subject to discovery. The pro se people will be crushed. What is the objection to the subpoena? Blake has an unlimited supply of money for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The content creators aren't being sued for defamation though, this is just evidence gathering. I have no sympathy for Perez or Candace but some of these CC are very small and some are making videos from their bedrooms. I would really like to know how they were chosen. I know they asked Wayfarer for a list of content creators. If they are trying to get evidence from those who were named and have some actual link to the Wayfarer or Wallace parties, that is one thing, but if they are just going to subpoena CC because they were negative about BL, I am not saying that is illegal, but it really is disgusting.

I do feel for the smaller CCs who just started talking about this case because it was high profile and now may worry they need a lawyer or may be burdened by discovery in a way that could be really difficult for a regular person. Like you I have zero empathy for Candace Owens or Perez Hilton. There's also a creator named Without a Crystal Ball on Reddit and I wouldn't care if she was subpoenaed -- she's crazy unreliable and just spews gossip. I'm okay with there be consequences for that behavior.

I am taking a wait and see approach on this though. The CCs may genuinely be very central to the case. BL wants to show that Baldoni et al set out to push a negative narrative about Blake online, in order to discredit her, both in retaliation for her complaints about Baldoni's/Heath's behavior and also so that people wouldn't believe her if she went public with her complaints. Baldoni's argument thus far has been that he and his side didn't need to push a negative narrative about Blake because people organically and spontaneously started talking negatively about her based on her own actions.

Right now it is honestly impossible to know which of those two narrative is true. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Lively committed a number of own goals on the PR front, most notably with her tone-deaf comments on DV and her efforts to promote her booze and haircare products during the IEWU promotion. Certainly some portion of the negative commentary around her is organic.

However, you cannot ignore the texts where Baldoni quite clearly seems to be asking Abel and Nathan to use PR to create a negative narrative about Blake online. Or the texts where Abel and Nathan seem to take credit for the negative narrative, or credit the work by Wallace and his team. This is pretty compelling evidence that at least some of the negative commentary online was driven by Abel/TAG/Wallace at Baldoni's request, which supports the retaliation claim.

Given those competing narratives, talking to CCs about their content and looking to see when the negative commentary about Blake started and what spurred it is of central importance to BOTH cases. It doesn't necessarily even benefit BL. Perhaps investigating this will reveal that the CCs were responding only to BL's own behavior, which would help prove Baldoni's case that the negative narrative was organic.

But it's relevant. Whether it supports BL's case or Baldoni's. So while I do feel for the smaller creators who never anticipated dealing with something like this, it's just so central to the case that I'd like to see where it goes before I start yelling that it's unfair. This is at the heart of the case.

Every accusation is a tell. Blake thinks Justin engaged with content creators because she definitely herself was doing it. There was one content creator who was ostensibly pro-JB who then reversed course last summer and said you had to wait and see what happened because the whole truth wasn’t being told, which is very similar rhetoric to what Blake’s brother in law said about the case last year too. You wouldn’t reverse course if you were actually employed by Jed Wallace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

No. If Reynolds career was over -- he would be fine as he is likely worth just under a billion dollars. But this will have no impact whatsoever on him. Not even a speed bump. Also Lively will be fine. Most people do not follow this. Most know nothing about it. She won the general public PR battle for those that do. Studios will be happy to use her as she is bank; no impact. No one cares ever about content creators. They never have and never will. Studios hate them so probably love this. This is not a bad day for them. Baldoni is the one that is done. No studio will back him again. Even if he is right and did nothing wrong he is not worth the hassle. Lively is.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it’s fair at all. You can just start subpoenaing anyone who ever said anything negative about you because you think there might be a retaliation claim? Should DCUM posters be subpoenaed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

No. If Reynolds career was over -- he would be fine as he is likely worth just under a billion dollars. But this will have no impact whatsoever on him. Not even a speed bump. Also Lively will be fine. Most people do not follow this. Most know nothing about it. She won the general public PR battle for those that do. Studios will be happy to use her as she is bank; no impact. No one cares ever about content creators. They never have and never will. Studios hate them so probably love this. This is not a bad day for them. Baldoni is the one that is done. No studio will back him again. Even if he is right and did nothing wrong he is not worth the hassle. Lively is.

The general public has backed Baldoni, not Lively. This is the most delusional comment in the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

No. If Reynolds career was over -- he would be fine as he is likely worth just under a billion dollars. But this will have no impact whatsoever on him. Not even a speed bump. Also Lively will be fine. Most people do not follow this. Most know nothing about it. She won the general public PR battle for those that do. Studios will be happy to use her as she is bank; no impact. No one cares ever about content creators. They never have and never will. Studios hate them so probably love this. This is not a bad day for them. Baldoni is the one that is done. No studio will back him again. Even if he is right and did nothing wrong he is not worth the hassle. Lively is.

The general public has backed Baldoni, not Lively. This is the most delusional comment in the thread.

DP but I agree with the PP. I dont' say that as a Lively or Reynolds fan. Most people don't care about this case one way or another, and Reynolds in particular makes the kind of middle-brow, crowd-pleasing entertainment that is highly profitable. Plus he's heavily diversified. I see this having basically no impact on him unless something comes out that totally destroys his reputation, but it would have to be way bigger than anything we've seen so far. He will not be abandoned by the people and companies that currently greatly profit off him just because some people view him as a bully. Hollywood and business are filled with bullies, it's probably a point in his favor in many of these circles.

Lively, I don't know. I wasn't a Lively fan before so I don't really get her appeal. If I had to put money on it, though, I'd assume she'll recover regardless of the outcome here because, like Ryan, I think most of the people who like her as an actress or follow her on Instagram have a fairly shallow, surface-level interest anyway. She was never their idol, they just liked her clothes or liked the fantasy of her life with Reynolds.

I don't think this is delusional, it's just realistic. I think people who are really invested in the case definitely skew towards Baldoni by a lot, but I think that's a tiny portion of the population and that most people don't care at all and never will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

No. If Reynolds career was over -- he would be fine as he is likely worth just under a billion dollars. But this will have no impact whatsoever on him. Not even a speed bump. Also Lively will be fine. Most people do not follow this. Most know nothing about it. She won the general public PR battle for those that do. Studios will be happy to use her as she is bank; no impact. No one cares ever about content creators. They never have and never will. Studios hate them so probably love this. This is not a bad day for them. Baldoni is the one that is done. No studio will back him again. Even if he is right and did nothing wrong he is not worth the hassle. Lively is.

The general public has backed Baldoni, not Lively. This is the most delusional comment in the thread.

DP but I agree with the PP. I dont' say that as a Lively or Reynolds fan. Most people don't care about this case one way or another, and Reynolds in particular makes the kind of middle-brow, crowd-pleasing entertainment that is highly profitable. Plus he's heavily diversified. I see this having basically no impact on him unless something comes out that totally destroys his reputation, but it would have to be way bigger than anything we've seen so far. He will not be abandoned by the people and companies that currently greatly profit off him just because some people view him as a bully. Hollywood and business are filled with bullies, it's probably a point in his favor in many of these circles.

Lively, I don't know. I wasn't a Lively fan before so I don't really get her appeal. If I had to put money on it, though, I'd assume she'll recover regardless of the outcome here because, like Ryan, I think most of the people who like her as an actress or follow her on Instagram have a fairly shallow, surface-level interest anyway. She was never their idol, they just liked her clothes or liked the fantasy of her life with Reynolds.

I don't think this is delusional, it's just realistic. I think people who are really invested in the case definitely skew towards Baldoni by a lot, but I think that's a tiny portion of the population and that most people don't care at all and never will.

I was not commenting on whether Ryan’s career would be fine or whether Blake would still get roles. I was specifically commenting on who the general public has backed, and it’s Justin, not Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

+1

Wishful thinking. Teenagers don’t care about any of this and will definitely see another Deadpool anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman granted the protective order without explaining his decision

BUT

if I knew absolutely nothing about this case and had never heard of any of the litigants, but you told me that the defandants' attorney had told a tabloid that they wanted to take the plaintiff's deposition in Madison Square Garden and sell tickets to the event, this is the the outcome I would predict.

You can't do stuff like that and expect the court to overlook it or give you the benefit of the doubt. Think of it from the court's position. If Liman rejects this PO and then Lively is accosted by photographers when showing up to her deposition, or details from the depo are leaked to tabloids, the court will have clearly erred in not doing something to protect the plaintiff especially since the defendants' attorney was on the public record promising something like that. Whereas there is really no downside to granting the PO. Having the depo at Gottlieb's office is not some magical advantage. It's an office building. It's not that big of a deal.

Freedman had to have known this would be a likely outcome of him making the MSG comment. And it would have been stupid for Lively's attorneys not to press for it, because it's more convenient and easier for them so why not use Freedman's screw up to their advantage.

Saying this means Liman is "corrupt" is bananas. This is what every judge I've ever encountered would do in this situation. It's an easy decision.

I've actually defended Liman or attempted to post neutral analysis of his decisions (which for the most part I have agreed with except for the Jed Wallace client list) but it does stand out that he made zero attempt here to provide any basis for this decision, neither legal not factual. He typically does that. It's kind of sus TBH.

So what if there are paparazzi? There can be paparazzi at Manatt's office too. The date and time of the depo is out there. If Wayfarer wants to leak info from the depo they can do that regardless of location. They can be sanctioned for that. I don't see this great concern, for example, of what happens if Wallace's client list gets leaked and he loses his reputation and business. Judge said it was protected by the existing PO. The existing PO also protects from Lively's deposition getting livestreamed or leaked.

There's a note in the docket suggesting something was filed under seal at the same time the order was issued. It's possible Liman issued a non-public ruling. Could have questioned some of Freedman's recent behavior but not wanted to bad mouth him publicly. Could also have set some conditions on time/date/whatever that he doesn't want public so as not to worsen the publicity problem. In any case, I think the docket entry suggests that he did give some explanation, we just don't have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman granted the protective order without explaining his decision

BUT

if I knew absolutely nothing about this case and had never heard of any of the litigants, but you told me that the defandants' attorney had told a tabloid that they wanted to take the plaintiff's deposition in Madison Square Garden and sell tickets to the event, this is the the outcome I would predict.

You can't do stuff like that and expect the court to overlook it or give you the benefit of the doubt. Think of it from the court's position. If Liman rejects this PO and then Lively is accosted by photographers when showing up to her deposition, or details from the depo are leaked to tabloids, the court will have clearly erred in not doing something to protect the plaintiff especially since the defendants' attorney was on the public record promising something like that. Whereas there is really no downside to granting the PO. Having the depo at Gottlieb's office is not some magical advantage. It's an office building. It's not that big of a deal.

Freedman had to have known this would be a likely outcome of him making the MSG comment. And it would have been stupid for Lively's attorneys not to press for it, because it's more convenient and easier for them so why not use Freedman's screw up to their advantage.

Saying this means Liman is "corrupt" is bananas. This is what every judge I've ever encountered would do in this situation. It's an easy decision.

I've actually defended Liman or attempted to post neutral analysis of his decisions (which for the most part I have agreed with except for the Jed Wallace client list) but it does stand out that he made zero attempt here to provide any basis for this decision, neither legal not factual. He typically does that. It's kind of sus TBH.

So what if there are paparazzi? There can be paparazzi at Manatt's office too. The date and time of the depo is out there. If Wayfarer wants to leak info from the depo they can do that regardless of location. They can be sanctioned for that. I don't see this great concern, for example, of what happens if Wallace's client list gets leaked and he loses his reputation and business. Judge said it was protected by the existing PO. The existing PO also protects from Lively's deposition getting livestreamed or leaked.

There's a note in the docket suggesting something was filed under seal at the same time the order was issued. It's possible Liman issued a non-public ruling. Could have questioned some of Freedman's recent behavior but not wanted to bad mouth him publicly. Could also have set some conditions on time/date/whatever that he doesn't want public so as not to worsen the publicity problem. In any case, I think the docket entry suggests that he did give some explanation, we just don't have it.

I've never heard of this, wouldn't they just redact the portions of the decision that are sealed? As stupid as this case is, court proceedings should be public to the extent possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However this case ends, Blake’s career and likely Ryan’s is now over. They bought themselves years and years of negative publicity going after the content creators. And bought is the appropriate verb as they are paying their own lawyers millions to destroy their reputations. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Two idiots.

No. If Reynolds career was over -- he would be fine as he is likely worth just under a billion dollars. But this will have no impact whatsoever on him. Not even a speed bump. Also Lively will be fine. Most people do not follow this. Most know nothing about it. She won the general public PR battle for those that do. Studios will be happy to use her as she is bank; no impact. No one cares ever about content creators. They never have and never will. Studios hate them so probably love this. This is not a bad day for them. Baldoni is the one that is done. No studio will back him again. Even if he is right and did nothing wrong he is not worth the hassle. Lively is.

Dream on, the hate on social media for her is, in fact, organic and well earned. She’s doneso.