Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More pro se stuff has been popping up. It's mostly Motions to Quash from the content creators, but also Perez Hilton requesting a protective order and a random guy making an argument why Lively's claims should be dismissed or summary judgment granted to Wayfarer (ie, what Freedman never bothered to do, and the guy has some decent points!).

The content creators mostly use similar templates but personalize them to their situations. There's one from Canada, one from the UK, and one who had just ONE subscriber. The one from the UK actually did have contact with Wayfarer's counsel because she's the one who tipped them off to the infamous NYT metadata, but she says they never replied to her. She says she was a domestic violence victim and calls the subpoena a digital strip search and points out several mistakes from Hudson.

I'm fascinated at how this will shake out... like, is Manatt going to rack up billables responding to whether they are required to follow the procedures under UK law when the creator is a British citizen but the subpoena is to Google? Are they going to argue they can't know if the creators are lying unless they get the IP proving they're not in the US? Are they going to get all aggressive and accuse them of crimes? (Some people on reddit want one of the creators prosecuted for allegedly committing perjury by using a fake name).

They are so passionate I actually wonder if strategically, Wayfarer should ask if any of them want to volunteer to testify at trial and basically just explain how they, organically, started hating Lively on their own. It would be a free trip to NY and publicity for them... I think some would definitely do it!

I just again have no clue why Lively's side would open this all up. They really better have a damn good reason because it's so ridiculous. And this will all be coming to a head late next week when the lawyers will be there in person for a hearing regarding the subpoena to Freedman's law firm.

This won't be popular, but I don't honestly think these are well done so far and I do hope that someone does hire an attorney to fully represent the interests of these folks. I think that people enjoy digs these make to Lively, but some of what they are suggesting is not going to fly with the judge -- though I do think he will be generally sympathetic to their concerns re overreach and privacy.

That said, I do think that the fact that most of these folks are NOT hiring real lawyers suggests they don't think they have anything to be worried about.

It really doesn’t matter what these folks say beyond opposing. It’s all going to depend on whether Blake has a strong argument for targeting these particular people, it’s going to be a heightened standard because they are third parties, they are pro se and she is seeking financial info protected by federal privacy laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are so passionate I actually wonder if strategically, Wayfarer should ask if any of them want to volunteer to testify at trial and basically just explain how they, organically, started hating Lively on their own. It would be a free trip to NY and publicity for them... I think some would definitely do it!

Lmao I love it, that would be hilarious. But if they agreed at Wayfarer’s request, wouldn’t Blake then try to argue that this proves they actually were in cahoots?

Lol probably but how fun would it be when Blake's lawyers cross examine them and they get all sassy and are like, nope, I just hate Blake? This is the type of publicity stunt I can see Freedman doing,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More pro se stuff has been popping up. It's mostly Motions to Quash from the content creators, but also Perez Hilton requesting a protective order and a random guy making an argument why Lively's claims should be dismissed or summary judgment granted to Wayfarer (ie, what Freedman never bothered to do, and the guy has some decent points!).

The content creators mostly use similar templates but personalize them to their situations. There's one from Canada, one from the UK, and one who had just ONE subscriber. The one from the UK actually did have contact with Wayfarer's counsel because she's the one who tipped them off to the infamous NYT metadata, but she says they never replied to her. She says she was a domestic violence victim and calls the subpoena a digital strip search and points out several mistakes from Hudson.

I'm fascinated at how this will shake out... like, is Manatt going to rack up billables responding to whether they are required to follow the procedures under UK law when the creator is a British citizen but the subpoena is to Google? Are they going to argue they can't know if the creators are lying unless they get the IP proving they're not in the US? Are they going to get all aggressive and accuse them of crimes? (Some people on reddit want one of the creators prosecuted for allegedly committing perjury by using a fake name).

They are so passionate I actually wonder if strategically, Wayfarer should ask if any of them want to volunteer to testify at trial and basically just explain how they, organically, started hating Lively on their own. It would be a free trip to NY and publicity for them... I think some would definitely do it!

I just again have no clue why Lively's side would open this all up. They really better have a damn good reason because it's so ridiculous. And this will all be coming to a head late next week when the lawyers will be there in person for a hearing regarding the subpoena to Freedman's law firm.

This won't be popular, but I don't honestly think these are well done so far and I do hope that someone does hire an attorney to fully represent the interests of these folks. I think that people enjoy digs these make to Lively, but some of what they are suggesting is not going to fly with the judge -- though I do think he will be generally sympathetic to their concerns re overreach and privacy.

That said, I do think that the fact that most of these folks are NOT hiring real lawyers suggests they don't think they have anything to be worried about.

It really doesn’t matter what these folks say beyond opposing. It’s all going to depend on whether Blake has a strong argument for targeting these particular people, it’s going to be a heightened standard because they are third parties, they are pro se and she is seeking financial info protected by federal privacy laws.

I think they do a decent job for pro se. They articulate the privacy concerns and the lack of any known nexus between their account and the relevant claims. They do also love to bring in a lot of extraneous and irrelevant material (like Reynolds being CEO of Vanzan) but to be fair, the actual lawyers on both sides make snarky and irrelevant remarks all the time too.

[Anonymous]

I do think it’s interesting that Gottlieb is MIA on these subpoenas.

[Anonymous]

1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Doesn't seem like it's the "only place" she didn't have trouble. We've seen photos of them on various location shoots where she doesn't complain about his behavior. But you've got to make her look as unreasonable as possible, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Doesn't seem like it's the "only place" she didn't have trouble. We've seen photos of them on various location shoots where she doesn't complain about his behavior. But you've got to make her look as unreasonable as possible, I guess.

Those are public spaces. She's complained about him in private spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Doesn't seem like it's the "only place" she didn't have trouble. We've seen photos of them on various location shoots where she doesn't complain about his behavior. But you've got to make her look as unreasonable as possible, I guess.

Those are public spaces. She's complained about him in private spaces.

A private plane isn't that private. They may not even have interacted that much, especially if she was with her kids, two of whom were very young at the time (can't remember exact timing, but her youngest would still have been a baby and the next one would have been 2 or 3 at the oldest). She almost certainly had a nanny on the plane with her and probably an assistant. Blake also has private security and I would assume at least one of them travelled with her as well. And that is before you get to the flight crew which would include likely one or two service attendants.

So the idea that it was just Blake, Justin, and her kids alone on this plane for 5 or 6 hours is far fetched. And everyone on the plane except Justin would either be related to Blake or employed by her, so actually I could see this feeling like a particularly secure location in a way the film set was not. Blake would be in control and have a lot of protection if Justin did anything that made her uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

She got what she wanted, which was control of the movie editing. She didn't get upset again until she started getting bad press when the movie came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

I don't get the sense that Lively's allegations are that Justin is a "sex pest" who lacks self control. She's not suing him for sexual assault and her complaint doesn't indicate that she felt he was trying to hit on her or have sex with her.

It's a hostile work environment claim. Her argument is that his behavior on the set and in their working relationship was sexually inappropriate, boundary violating, and sometimes sexist in a way that made it hard for her to do her job. I think people get the "sex pest" idea because of the allegations from Justin that Ryan called him a sexual predator. But Blake's complaint doesn't make him sound like a sexual predator at all. It makes him sound kind of tone deaf and chauvinist at times, and the stuff around the birth scene in particular indicates he may have some attitudes about women that made women on the set feel uncomfortable or not listened to. The alleged incident with Jenny Slate is in the same vein -- Heath supposedly said something that felt diminishing or judgmental regarding working moms (very unclear what exactly happened but that's the gist I can get).

Anyway, the allegations are that Baldoni and Heath were inappropriate and made people uncomfortable, not that they were sex pests. That can still be sexual harassment. I really don't know if what happened on this set rose to that level, and neither do you, but it's important to understand the nature of what is being alleged. At no point does Lively allege that Baldoni was coming on to her, only that his behavior was sexually charged and gendered in a way that made her feel uncomfortable to a degree that interfered with her ability to do her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

She got what she wanted, which was control of the movie editing. She didn't get upset again until she started getting bad press when the movie came out.

She didn't yet have control over editing during the second half of filming, post strike. In fact at that point she had recently been brushed off about getting access to dailies, according to Justin's timeline. It was only after filming wrapped that she started pushing for access to editing during post production.

She didn't complain during the second half of filming because, presumably, people were adhering to the 17 point list regarding things like touching on set, presence of intimacy coordinators, access to her trailer, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

She got what she wanted, which was control of the movie editing. She didn't get upset again until she started getting bad press when the movie came out.

Adding, one must view it all through the lens of her being a control freak. Watch the TikToks where she is futzing with her costars during publicity shots or telling the waiter how to pour her drink.