Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, for Blake to prove the retaliation claim, will she also have to prove sexual harassment occurred? I keep hearing different things.

No. She just has to show she had a reasonable belief she was harassed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the retaliation claim. I still think Blake's PR mistakes were largely self-inflicted. But reading Blake's complaint, there are some texts confirming Jed Wallace did do work, and if you read Justin's lawsuit, the only thing I get out of that is that they didn't use bots -- which still doesn't mean they couldn't have planted stories.

For example, in a text from Jennifer Abel, according to Blake Lively’s complaint, she says this: “We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's
efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.”

What do lawyers have to say to that? Is that problematic for you, or does it still fail to pass muster given that it seems Justin was doing this to protect his reputation and it wasn't in retaliation to the SH claims?

I used to do sexual harassment/retaliation cases and you are totally right that this appears to be (1) retaliatory and (2) damaging. It has always been her strongest argument. But there’s a lot more she still has to prove - especially that the retaliation was due to her harassment complaint, which is not actually totally clear. She would also have to prove (for damages, not to prove the retaliation happened) that the damages to her brand sales and reputation are due to the retaliation and not other factors.

Too bad Justin didn’t consult with a lawyer who would have told him this was a dumb*ss move …

Funny, because just like during the filming of the movie, I think he felt cornered and like he had nowhere to go. He hired Melissa Nathan after Ryan Reynolds went to WME and called him a sexual predator — shouldn’t that really help his case? I don’t know how a court will see that though.

But presumably he had the option to pursue a different remedy (e.g., file a defamation claim). That, of course, would have then prompted her to go public with her sexual harassment claims, which is what he was trying to avoid. But if the claims were BS, then he still could have defended those with all his evidence. He made a dicey gamble there, and it may cost him.

+1. should have called a LAWYER not a PR agent!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the retaliation claim. I still think Blake's PR mistakes were largely self-inflicted. But reading Blake's complaint, there are some texts confirming Jed Wallace did do work, and if you read Justin's lawsuit, the only thing I get out of that is that they didn't use bots -- which still doesn't mean they couldn't have planted stories.

For example, in a text from Jennifer Abel, according to Blake Lively’s complaint, she says this: “We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's
efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.”

What do lawyers have to say to that? Is that problematic for you, or does it still fail to pass muster given that it seems Justin was doing this to protect his reputation and it wasn't in retaliation to the SH claims?

I used to do sexual harassment/retaliation cases and you are totally right that this appears to be (1) retaliatory and (2) damaging. It has always been her strongest argument. But there’s a lot more she still has to prove - especially that the retaliation was due to her harassment complaint, which is not actually totally clear. She would also have to prove (for damages, not to prove the retaliation happened) that the damages to her brand sales and reputation are due to the retaliation and not other factors.

Too bad Justin didn’t consult with a lawyer who would have told him this was a dumb*ss move …

Funny, because just like during the filming of the movie, I think he felt cornered and like he had nowhere to go. He hired Melissa Nathan after Ryan Reynolds went to WME and called him a sexual predator — shouldn’t that really help his case? I don’t know how a court will see that though.

But presumably he had the option to pursue a different remedy (e.g., file a defamation claim). That, of course, would have then prompted her to go public with her sexual harassment claims, which is what he was trying to avoid. But if the claims were BS, then he still could have defended those with all his evidence. He made a dicey gamble there, and it may cost him.

But this raises the question of maybe the claims were not BS and at least *some* were legitimate. Like the stuff he hasn't really addressed in his complaints so far -- did he and Heath pressure her to be nude in the birth scene the day of, and other "irregularities" in the way that scene was filmed? did Heath refuse to leave a makeup trailer when he was asked, when Lively was topless? To me these are her two strongest claims and the ones that I don't think Baldoni has responded adequately to.

I also think these are things that may have happened due to poor management and inexperience by Baldoni and the whole Wayfarer team, not necessarily due to Baldoni being a "sexual predator." But with harassment, sometimes it happens because an organization is just really disorganized and poorly run. Humans are inherently flawed and prone to miscommunication and misunderstandings. A good organization guards against that becoming a problem with good process, good oversight, and good culture. Crappy organizations are much more prone to harassment because it makes it much easier for one person's human foibles (maybe a bit of myopia about what it's like for a woman to film a birth scene, maybe a misunderstanding about the level of privacy an actress can expect on a film set, maybe some inexperience with when to call in an intimacy coordinator and when not to) become huge problems, because the organization fails to prevent problems via training and cultural tone-setting, and also fails to address smaller problems when they arise, leading them to pile up and get bigger.

That's what I think might have happened here. Which I think would still make Baldoni and Wayfarer liable, especially if they responded to the rumors about Lively's issues on set by hiring a PR team to smear her in the press and online (again, a sign of a bad organization/culture because it's an escalating defensive move instead of a resolving one).

[Anonymous]

Sexual harassment has a scale from this (0) to Harvey Weinstein (10). I'm sorry Blake was uncomfortable, I have no doubt she has felt victimized and is enraged by her treatment, but this should not be looped in with true victims of sexual harassment and me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Just read up on this. Wasn’t really a fan of either but this is a REALLY bad look for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. Like holy hell, she was sexting this guy and he basically rejected her.

And she also wants control of these films so she claimed he harassed her and tried to metoo him. When the guy seems to just be a random guy who likes acting and loves his wife and family.

What a disgusting tool Blake Lively is. Usually I side with the women in these situations, but cmon.

What pages are the sexing? Did I miss it?!

She's clearly a liar though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sexual harassment has a scale from this (0) to Harvey Weinstein (10). I'm sorry Blake was uncomfortable, I have no doubt she has felt victimized and is enraged by her treatment, but this should not be looped in with true victims of sexual harassment and me too.

I think it’s more like this is -10, not zero. And I don’t think she was “sexting,” but rather sees herself as a charming in-control provocateur who could push her boss on this project around and thieve credits. It’s utterly vile. I live in NYC and have close relationships with 3 different people in the business, two are writer-directors (and they’re nerdy grad-educated progressive women, gasp!!!) and they think the Reynolds-Livelys are manipulative liars and that beej-referencing comm shows it. Baldoni side-stepped that minefield strewn path pretty deftly. Her hammy fail-attempt at banter to cover her unasked for rewrite is the move of a ballsy fabricator.

Gotta love the tiresome sht-posting insisting that a pre-trial response not going point by point against an under sourced meandering complaints is evidence of guilt. Let’s get the calendar developed before we assert things - like nerds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

This is the immoral part i was talking about. A lot of entertainment PR agents came out and said using of bots is looked down upon ans nit something normally done. Thats what Jed's known for in the PR industry. You can find plenty of reddit posts about it, lots not dealing with this Blake situation too.

Who cares if it is immoral? That doesn’t make it actionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fine for people to have unguarded or playful conversations. But it’s problematic if you have one standard for yourself but then hold others to a different standard. If you are someone who wants a highly professionally, rather buttoned up working environment, the best way to communicate that is to behave with that level of decorum at all times yourself. I think the text above is at best confusing. Some men might have read that as a green light to make some sort of move.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, for Blake to prove the retaliation claim, will she also have to prove sexual harassment occurred? I keep hearing different things.

Yes, a retaliation claim needs to be in response to something else unlawful, it doesn’t stand alone.

[Anonymous]

The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the retaliation claim. I still think Blake's PR mistakes were largely self-inflicted. But reading Blake's complaint, there are some texts confirming Jed Wallace did do work, and if you read Justin's lawsuit, the only thing I get out of that is that they didn't use bots -- which still doesn't mean they couldn't have planted stories.

For example, in a text from Jennifer Abel, according to Blake Lively’s complaint, she says this: “We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's
efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.”

What do lawyers have to say to that? Is that problematic for you, or does it still fail to pass muster given that it seems Justin was doing this to protect his reputation and it wasn't in retaliation to the SH claims?

I used to do sexual harassment/retaliation cases and you are totally right that this appears to be (1) retaliatory and (2) damaging. It has always been her strongest argument. But there’s a lot more she still has to prove - especially that the retaliation was due to her harassment complaint, which is not actually totally clear. She would also have to prove (for damages, not to prove the retaliation happened) that the damages to her brand sales and reputation are due to the retaliation and not other factors.

Too bad Justin didn’t consult with a lawyer who would have told him this was a dumb*ss move …

Funny, because just like during the filming of the movie, I think he felt cornered and like he had nowhere to go. He hired Melissa Nathan after Ryan Reynolds went to WME and called him a sexual predator — shouldn’t that really help his case? I don’t know how a court will see that though.

But presumably he had the option to pursue a different remedy (e.g., file a defamation claim). That, of course, would have then prompted her to go public with her sexual harassment claims, which is what he was trying to avoid. But if the claims were BS, then he still could have defended those with all his evidence. He made a dicey gamble there, and it may cost him.

But this raises the question of maybe the claims were not BS and at least *some* were legitimate. Like the stuff he hasn't really addressed in his complaints so far -- did he and Heath pressure her to be nude in the birth scene the day of, and other "irregularities" in the way that scene was filmed? did Heath refuse to leave a makeup trailer when he was asked, when Lively was topless? To me these are her two strongest claims and the ones that I don't think Baldoni has responded adequately to.

I also think these are things that may have happened due to poor management and inexperience by Baldoni and the whole Wayfarer team, not necessarily due to Baldoni being a "sexual predator." But with harassment, sometimes it happens because an organization is just really disorganized and poorly run. Humans are inherently flawed and prone to miscommunication and misunderstandings. A good organization guards against that becoming a problem with good process, good oversight, and good culture. Crappy organizations are much more prone to harassment because it makes it much easier for one person's human foibles (maybe a bit of myopia about what it's like for a woman to film a birth scene, maybe a misunderstanding about the level of privacy an actress can expect on a film set, maybe some inexperience with when to call in an intimacy coordinator and when not to) become huge problems, because the organization fails to prevent problems via training and cultural tone-setting, and also fails to address smaller problems when they arise, leading them to pile up and get bigger.

That's what I think might have happened here. Which I think would still make Baldoni and Wayfarer liable, especially if they responded to the rumors about Lively's issues on set by hiring a PR team to smear her in the press and online (again, a sign of a bad organization/culture because it's an escalating defensive move instead of a resolving one).

For the umpteenth time, she was not nude in the birthing scene. There is not point in posting paragraphs of allegations that have already been debunked literally hundreds of times.

[Anonymous]

I thought that after the trailer incident etc when she came to them with the list of 17 issues, Baldoni and his production company signed an agreement not to retaliate against her for raising those issues. So isn't that agreement what the retaliation claim is based on, and so any retaliation on his part after that would be in violation of that agreement he made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fine for people to have unguarded or playful conversations. But it’s problematic if you have one standard for yourself but then hold others to a different standard. If you are someone who wants a highly professionally, rather buttoned up working environment, the best way to communicate that is to behave with that level of decorum at all times yourself. I think the text above is at best confusing. Some men might have read that as a green light to make some sort of move.

+1

That’s one of the major issues for me. Seemed to be two different sets of standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him. It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake. Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.

True but it is going to be hard to completely remove her written complaint from the chain of events. I think the legal standard is that the protected activity (the harassment complaint) contributed to the retaliation - not that it was the sole cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fine for people to have unguarded or playful conversations. But it’s problematic if you have one standard for yourself but then hold others to a different standard. If you are someone who wants a highly professionally, rather buttoned up working environment, the best way to communicate that is to behave with that level of decorum at all times yourself. I think the text above is at best confusing. Some men might have read that as a green light to make some sort of move.

+1

That’s one of the major issues for me. Seemed to be two different sets of standards.

the law takes this into account - the victim has to show it was “unwelcome” and that can be rebutted by showing that the victim engaged in similar conduct.