Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

Not all of us are reading/posting constantly in this thread. What specifically do you want us to relate the deposition testimony to? Actual claims? Outside evidence that keeps being brought up?

I think you are way more invested in this case than most people posting here. But I am sure some are happy to respond if you give them some idea what you want a response to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Are you the poster claiming to be a (litigation?) attorney?

Also you realize many of the exhibits, many of the affidavits and a portions filings themselves are sealed, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Are you the poster claiming to be a (litigation?) attorney?

Also you realize many of the exhibits, many of the affidavits and a portions filings themselves are sealed, right?

I do. I also realize that much of the deposition testimony would NOT be admissible for trial.
A lot of it is inadmissible hearsay. A lot of it is propensity evidence that is generally not admissible. Unlikely testimony about yelling coming in since that isn’t what Blake complains about, certain it will be subject to pretrial briefing if it gets that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Are you the poster claiming to be a (litigation?) attorney?

Also you realize many of the exhibits, many of the affidavits and a portions filings themselves are sealed, right?

I do. I also realize that much of the deposition testimony would NOT be admissible for trial.
A lot of it is inadmissible hearsay. A lot of it is propensity evidence that is generally not admissible. Unlikely testimony about yelling coming in since that isn’t what Blake complains about, certain it will be subject to pretrial briefing if it gets that far.

How do you know that’s what’s in the exhibits? Were they described somewhere such that you can surmise what is in them?

What do you make of the expert reports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

To be fair, some people actually do read the pleadings and are open to changing their minds. It's not like IEWU reddit, where every day is the best day ever for Baldoni and the sleuths will find one or two lines that make him look good in hundreds of pages of Lively's evidence against him.

[Anonymous]

People magazine reporting this trial is delayed two months to May 2026. Judge Liman has a criminal trial that is taking precedence.

I simply can’t imagine that lively and Reynolds wanted litigation stretched out for two years after this film. Their comments are still blocked so their social media engagement is very low and that actually does matter to celebs. I am sure whoever the investors of Blake Brown hair is are pissed as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

You realize this “us versus them” mentality that you keep putting forward is really strange for a case where you are just a bystander. Most of us truly are not that wedded to these proceedings and just pick up on pleadings or updates here and there when something interesting hits the news. That’s why our minds change as the case progresses. And yes, believe it or not, some of us do not see this as a war where one side just has to win and anyone that does not agree is a bot/whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

You realize this “us versus them” mentality that you keep putting forward is really strange for a case where you are just a bystander. Most of us truly are not that wedded to these proceedings and just pick up on pleadings or updates here and there when something interesting hits the news. That’s why our minds change as the case progresses. And yes, believe it or not, some of us do not see this as a war where one side just has to win and anyone that does not agree is a bot/whatever.

+1, the Team Justin/Team Blake nature of a lot of the commentary is very tiresome to me. Also people trying to twist every development to look good for their "team" and never being willing to acknowledge when the person they are supporting does or says something boneheaded. I also don't get it when people are clearly falling 100% for the spin that lawyers or PR people are putting out and then regurgitating it all over the internet.

If there is one thing people should learn from this case, it's to not buy into the projected image of any celeb. Everyone involved in this case is deeply flawed, there are no heroes. I have my thoughts about who is right on the law, as well as who is more morally/ethically correct, but I don't think anyone is an innocent victim and it just strikes me as so naive to have that perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

You realize this “us versus them” mentality that you keep putting forward is really strange for a case where you are just a bystander. Most of us truly are not that wedded to these proceedings and just pick up on pleadings or updates here and there when something interesting hits the news. That’s why our minds change as the case progresses. And yes, believe it or not, some of us do not see this as a war where one side just has to win and anyone that does not agree is a bot/whatever.

+1, the Team Justin/Team Blake nature of a lot of the commentary is very tiresome to me. Also people trying to twist every development to look good for their "team" and never being willing to acknowledge when the person they are supporting does or says something boneheaded. I also don't get it when people are clearly falling 100% for the spin that lawyers or PR people are putting out and then regurgitating it all over the internet.

If there is one thing people should learn from this case, it's to not buy into the projected image of any celeb. Everyone involved in this case is deeply flawed, there are no heroes. I have my thoughts about who is right on the law, as well as who is more morally/ethically correct, but I don't think anyone is an innocent victim and it just strikes me as so naive to have that perception.

I don't understand the team mentality either.

For myself I can say I totally disagreed with Lively's side on:
-Vanzan, it was totally unethical.
-That early fishing expedition telecom subpoena was a wild overreach.
-Content creator subpoenas other than those named by TAG (Perez, Popcorned Planet, etc). I felt really sorry for the small time creators being harassed like that.
-I was horrified at the Taylor Swift spoliation allegations, but those never came to fruition so I won't count those (I would be willing to believe if Freedman could put forth a shred of evidence besides his words).
-The dance scene claim was BS as evidenced by the video.

I totally disagree with the Baldoni side on:
-Their discovery games. They clearly have a lot to hide.
-From their texts it is quite obvious they were boosting unflattering articles and comments. Katie Case laughs about it in the texts. I hope Lively finds a smoking gun proof as Jones appears to have found with the websites.
-Freedman's tactics and filing ridiculous claims like extortion.
-They have clearly played the Taylor Swift thing for PR. If they thought she had relevant information, competent attorneys would have pursued a timely motion to compel, not whatever that was at the last minute.
-Can't ignore the number of women independently coming to the conclusion that Baldoni is an ass and they won't do promo or work with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

The prior post specifically called out summary judgment as a point where the best evidence comes out. But even then, both sides will try to keeps as much as possible redacted/under seal for as long as possible. This is especially true in a high profile case. I’ve worked on high profile matter where the entire MSJ and all exhibits remain sealed through either a ruling or trial depending on the sensitivity. So I continue to believe we haven’t seen the most important evidence from either side. For example, the export reports (or one at least) was just released.

I guess my point is that I don’t understand how we even know what form the best evidence will take in this matter as it’s clear we haven’t seen it yet.

[Anonymous]

I wonder when we say that there were times when Justin lost his temper or acted unprofessionally, does it matter to anyone that Blake and Ryan were really pushing way beyond the boundaries of a professional relationship?

It seemed like fairly early on in production, Blake and Ryan liked to have meetings with Baldoni in their Tribeca penthouse. I find that pretty unprofessional of them, and also unprofessional to have other celebrity friends there as well.

It’s kind of absurd to me that more people haven’t questioned that.

Then to push the opinions of high-powered celebrity friends when wanting to say change the rooftop scene or something seems really unprofessional. It also seems insane to me that Ryan berated Justin I believe according to the timeline at least twice, both times in the penthouse, one time leading to a Sony exec to quit the movie because he had never seen such bad behavior.

I also don’t see people questioning Ryan’s involvement in this movie enough. Is it because he’s just such a huge celebrity and power player that we take for granted that of course he’s going to be super involved in a film that he has nothing to do with?? But isn’t that really out of the norm and also super unprofessional? I actually think that is why Blake is having trouble getting roles because now people if they didn’t realize before, see that they’re getting a package deal.

We have to ask ourselves if Blake wasn’t married to Ryan Reynolds would a lot of these scenarios have happened. I just have been really surprised that more people haven’t pushed back… Why the F was Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman in a meeting about it ends with us with Justin? Why in the hell were these meetings taking place in Ryan Reynolds penthouse and not at a studio or onset? Why was Ryan allowed to berate Justin?

I just don’t see people questioning that enough probably because these are celebrities so they seem benign, but in any other workplace setting, this would be so totally out of the ordinary.

It seems like Justin was put in some really challenging and totally unprofessional scenarios and the power imbalance was really off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder when we say that there were times when Justin lost his temper or acted unprofessionally, does it matter to anyone that Blake and Ryan were really pushing way beyond the boundaries of a professional relationship?

It seemed like fairly early on in production, Blake and Ryan liked to have meetings with Baldoni in their Tribeca penthouse. I find that pretty unprofessional of them, and also unprofessional to have other celebrity friends there as well.

It’s kind of absurd to me that more people haven’t questioned that.

Then to push the opinions of high-powered celebrity friends when wanting to say change the rooftop scene or something seems really unprofessional. It also seems insane to me that Ryan berated Justin I believe according to the timeline at least twice, both times in the penthouse, one time leading to a Sony exec to quit the movie because he had never seen such bad behavior.

I also don’t see people questioning Ryan’s involvement in this movie enough. Is it because he’s just such a huge celebrity and power player that we take for granted that of course he’s going to be super involved in a film that he has nothing to do with?? But isn’t that really out of the norm and also super unprofessional? I actually think that is why Blake is having trouble getting roles because now people if they didn’t realize before, see that they’re getting a package deal.

We have to ask ourselves if Blake wasn’t married to Ryan Reynolds would a lot of these scenarios have happened. I just have been really surprised that more people haven’t pushed back… Why the F was Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman in a meeting about it ends with us with Justin? Why in the hell were these meetings taking place in Ryan Reynolds penthouse and not at a studio or onset? Why was Ryan allowed to berate Justin?

I just don’t see people questioning that enough probably because these are celebrities so they seem benign, but in any other workplace setting, this would be so totally out of the ordinary.

It seems like Justin was put in some really challenging and totally unprofessional scenarios and the power imbalance was really off.

Are you saying that was a good excuse for the pattern of poor behavior with multiple female coworkers, even prior to his interactions with Ryan?