Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read Wallace’s complaint. It’s short. Can anyone weigh in on what they think of it? Someone up thread said it was exceedingly thin, but I’m curious about why. Variety links to the complaint in their article about it.

Okay, interesting. He is seeking both a declaratory judgment and damages in his defamation claim. I'm just skimming because I have to leave in 10 minutes, but looks like in the DJ request he's asking the court to issue a declaration that says Lively essentially can't sue him. Premise appears to be that since he never had any contract with Lively and they never actually had a professional relationship, he can't be joined in a lawsuit alleging harassment/retaliation or anything related to an employment contract. Which actually makes sense and is probably why she didn't actually name him in the complaint she filed to begin with.

He's also seeking defamation based on being named in that precursor to a complaint that got leaked to the NYT. He's saying he lost work/business and had his professional rep damaged by her allegations there.

It's a very bare bones complaint so unlike the others that have been filed related to these events, he doesn't include a bunch of evidence. This is what most complaints look like though -- appending all the texts and evidence is not typical because usually you file the complaint and then use discovery to collect evidence. Sometimes a complaint will include a critical piece of evidence like a copy of a contract but often it will just have the alleged facts.

Based on super quick review I'd say that he's likely to get the declaratory judgment unless Lively can explain what their relationship is that would justify a lawsuit (and also there may be some aspect of employment law that would allow them to extend the lawsuit to him, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert). It seems straightforward and makes sense. She hasn't sued him yet so I don't know how much this matters.

As for the defamation all the same issues apply as with the Baldoni case except that it would be hard to argue Wallace is a public figure. So lower standard. I'd have to review exactly what Lively's filings said about Wallace to judge that. Remember truth is a defense to defamation so if she can prove he did what she says, that's enough. But I can't remember exactly what she says so I don't know, maybe it's really over the top and speculative.

Interesting. The person who seems the most reviled in the PR game is Leslie Sloane. We’ll see what happens all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting and long profile of Bryan Freedman from last summer, before the Baldoni of it all:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

Worth reading all the way to the end. Gets into varying opinions on his tactics, his big successes and also some questionable stuff that has gotten him in trouble, etc. He seems like a complicated person.

Also I wanted to add that you can see the connecting lines to Baldoni even though this was written before this case emerged. Freedman represented FKA Twigs in her suit against Shia LaBouf; FKA Twigs appeared on an episode of Baldoni's podcast not that long ago. Freedman made his name by representing Megyn Kelly in her wrongful termination suit against NBC; Kelly has been a vocal proponent of Baldoni's side in his battle with Lively.

And some other stuff of note:

- Freedman was accused of filing a "frivolous sexual assault claim" in 2023, as part of a complicated home renovation dispute. However when another attorney tried to recover damages for his client due to the claim, the court rejected it.

- Freedman once waived around a document on TMZ that said "Slave Contract" on it and alleged it was a real contract involving talent he represented and Bravo/NBCUniversal. It appears it was later revealed that the "contract" was actually a prop related to a BDSM relationship in a different case Freedman was on.

- Freedman is currently being sued by a guy named Christian Lannge for, among other things, hiring third parties to create deepfake stories about Lanng online. Freedman has vigorously denied the accusation (said it sounds like a CIA plot) but the litigation is ongoing.

None of this is that big of a deal. Litigators with big personalities like this are often high conflict in their personal lives too

Nothing in the prior post involves Freedman's personal life, though.

Actually his personal life sounds super solid -- long married to one partner, three grown kids who sound relatively successful. Stable.

He's certainly audacious/volatile professionally though.

Well, personal in that these suits involve him as a party, not as a lawyer.

Litigators like to litigate, across all areas. Good that he’s not divorced as divorcez with lawyers- especially litigators- tend to get the craziest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting and long profile of Bryan Freedman from last summer, before the Baldoni of it all:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

Worth reading all the way to the end. Gets into varying opinions on his tactics, his big successes and also some questionable stuff that has gotten him in trouble, etc. He seems like a complicated person.

Also I wanted to add that you can see the connecting lines to Baldoni even though this was written before this case emerged. Freedman represented FKA Twigs in her suit against Shia LaBouf; FKA Twigs appeared on an episode of Baldoni's podcast not that long ago. Freedman made his name by representing Megyn Kelly in her wrongful termination suit against NBC; Kelly has been a vocal proponent of Baldoni's side in his battle with Lively.

And some other stuff of note:

- Freedman was accused of filing a "frivolous sexual assault claim" in 2023, as part of a complicated home renovation dispute. However when another attorney tried to recover damages for his client due to the claim, the court rejected it.

- Freedman once waived around a document on TMZ that said "Slave Contract" on it and alleged it was a real contract involving talent he represented and Bravo/NBCUniversal. It appears it was later revealed that the "contract" was actually a prop related to a BDSM relationship in a different case Freedman was on.

- Freedman is currently being sued by a guy named Christian Lannge for, among other things, hiring third parties to create deepfake stories about Lanng online. Freedman has vigorously denied the accusation (said it sounds like a CIA plot) but the litigation is ongoing.

None of this is that big of a deal. Litigators with big personalities like this are often high conflict in their personal lives too

Disagree, for what it's worth. If abhorrent personalities and distasteful acts are relevant as they seem to be in this thread, then no one is exempt, including Baldoni and his attorney.

Those aren’t abhorrent acts necessarily. Litigators are comfortable defending themselves with the law, that’s all you can take from these facts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read Wallace’s complaint. It’s short. Can anyone weigh in on what they think of it? Someone up thread said it was exceedingly thin, but I’m curious about why. Variety links to the complaint in their article about it.

Okay, interesting. He is seeking both a declaratory judgment and damages in his defamation claim. I'm just skimming because I have to leave in 10 minutes, but looks like in the DJ request he's asking the court to issue a declaration that says Lively essentially can't sue him. Premise appears to be that since he never had any contract with Lively and they never actually had a professional relationship, he can't be joined in a lawsuit alleging harassment/retaliation or anything related to an employment contract. Which actually makes sense and is probably why she didn't actually name him in the complaint she filed to begin with.

He's also seeking defamation based on being named in that precursor to a complaint that got leaked to the NYT. He's saying he lost work/business and had his professional rep damaged by her allegations there.

It's a very bare bones complaint so unlike the others that have been filed related to these events, he doesn't include a bunch of evidence. This is what most complaints look like though -- appending all the texts and evidence is not typical because usually you file the complaint and then use discovery to collect evidence. Sometimes a complaint will include a critical piece of evidence like a copy of a contract but often it will just have the alleged facts.

Based on super quick review I'd say that he's likely to get the declaratory judgment unless Lively can explain what their relationship is that would justify a lawsuit (and also there may be some aspect of employment law that would allow them to extend the lawsuit to him, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert). It seems straightforward and makes sense. She hasn't sued him yet so I don't know how much this matters.

As for the defamation all the same issues apply as with the Baldoni case except that it would be hard to argue Wallace is a public figure. So lower standard. I'd have to review exactly what Lively's filings said about Wallace to judge that. Remember truth is a defense to defamation so if she can prove he did what she says, that's enough. But I can't remember exactly what she says so I don't know, maybe it's really over the top and speculative.

Ok this seems like a fairly smart move. Who are his lawyers?

[Anonymous]

I haven’t listened to it yet but Bryan Freedman is on TMZ’s latest podcast episode: https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/05/taylor-swift-deposition-justin-baldoni-blake-lively-case

[Anonymous]

Listening now and interesting that Harvey says this case will NEVER go to trial. I know most don’t but deep down I always thought it could because Justin wants to clear his name.

[Anonymous]

This is just so interesting to watch play out. It’s always nice to see someone who won’t back down. No matter what, the golden couple loses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just so interesting to watch play out. It’s always nice to see someone who won’t back down. No matter what, the golden couple loses.

+1
I've just been sort of dipping in and out of all of this, and I have to say - I really admire Baldoni for standing up for himself and not just caving the way so many would when accused of sexual harassment, etc. I'm not a huge fan of his, but I admire anyone who is willing to defend himself from (what certainly appears to be) false accusations.

After watching the horrible way she treated that interviewer, I can never look at her the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting and long profile of Bryan Freedman from last summer, before the Baldoni of it all:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

Worth reading all the way to the end. Gets into varying opinions on his tactics, his big successes and also some questionable stuff that has gotten him in trouble, etc. He seems like a complicated person.

Also I wanted to add that you can see the connecting lines to Baldoni even though this was written before this case emerged. Freedman represented FKA Twigs in her suit against Shia LaBouf; FKA Twigs appeared on an episode of Baldoni's podcast not that long ago. Freedman made his name by representing Megyn Kelly in her wrongful termination suit against NBC; Kelly has been a vocal proponent of Baldoni's side in his battle with Lively.

And some other stuff of note:

- Freedman was accused of filing a "frivolous sexual assault claim" in 2023, as part of a complicated home renovation dispute. However when another attorney tried to recover damages for his client due to the claim, the court rejected it.

- Freedman once waived around a document on TMZ that said "Slave Contract" on it and alleged it was a real contract involving talent he represented and Bravo/NBCUniversal. It appears it was later revealed that the "contract" was actually a prop related to a BDSM relationship in a different case Freedman was on.

- Freedman is currently being sued by a guy named Christian Lannge for, among other things, hiring third parties to create deepfake stories about Lanng online. Freedman has vigorously denied the accusation (said it sounds like a CIA plot) but the litigation is ongoing.

None of this is that big of a deal. Litigators with big personalities like this are often high conflict in their personal lives too

Disagree, for what it's worth. If abhorrent personalities and distasteful acts are relevant as they seem to be in this thread, then no one is exempt, including Baldoni and his attorney.

Those aren’t abhorrent acts necessarily. Litigators are comfortable defending themselves with the law, that’s all you can take from these facts

I think think the thing with the "slave contract" is pretty bad. It's basically dirty tricks.

The sexual assault claim is bad if it really was frivolous. I mean, this is the whole point with Lively's case, right? The idea that you can just allege sexual harassment to make someone look bad. But it sounds like that's what Freedman is accused of doing. If it's bad when Lively does it, it's bad when Freedman does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Planting stories, unless false, seems even less actionable to me! Maybe it's because I think celebrity PR is sort of inherently bereft of dignity, but something like re-introducing old (but verified) interviews seems...fine? Sure, it's a powerplay. But again, you couldn't do this without the underlying footage.

The factual question will really be whether he did this PR stuff in retaliation for her SH claims (as she is arguing) or completely separately (as he says) to protect himself from the bad PR that was coming out of how she treated him during the movie press tour and PR. It will be pretty tough to untangle IMO.

I think it will be relatively easy to untangle.

PR activity to boost Baldoni's positive press, get him interviews, place positive stories about him, even seeding positive comments about him on social media using Jed Wallace/bots (as unsavory as that practice is IMO) -- not retaliation.

PR activity to attack Lively, place negative stories about her in the press, seed social media with negative comments and discussion of her whether via his PR firm or using Jed Wallace/bots -- maybe retaliation (depending on whether the underlying sexual harassment claims survive).

Lively has some other stuff in her complaint kind of arguing that Baldoni intentionally deviated from Sony's marketing strategy for the movie in order to look Lively look bad (by talking about DV and DV survivors while Lively was talking about "wear your florals"). I think that's much dicier and unlikely to go far unless the underlying SH claims are viewed as very strong.

So it really may come down to exactly what the stories were that they were planting or what the comments were that they were having Wallace seed online. If they were exclusively about Baldoni and how he's great, I don't think there's any retaliation claim. If they were about Lively, I think he has a problem.

That isn’t how it will work, not even remotely. He can still win if he placed negative stories about her if he can show it was in response to actions she took to hurt his reputation.

“Gordon Reynolds” was thanked by Lively in the end credits of IEWU. “Gordon Reynolds” was in the end credits as portraying “Nicepool,” the nasty, killed off character satirizing Baldoni in the Deadpool-Wolverine film. Lipstick Alley has a thread, started today on the celebrity gossip part of the board, showing screenshots of now-deleted Reels by the trainer who Baldoni went to regarding whether he’d be able to lift Lively without destroying his back muscles. The idiot trainer has been a friend of RR and BL for years, laughed at Baldoni being satirized, and tried to delete the stories he liked and laughed at in his social media being harshly critical of Baldoni.

Lively and Reynolds engaged in an extensive and expensive all-out reputational eviscerating of Baldoni across a theatrically released international blockbuster film that Baldoni had nothing to do with. They flooded social media and had friends repost stories cruelly critical of Baldoni, mocking him publicly, at the same time. This PR sht she claims is a projection of what she and her team are fully guilty of and which we can see and verify with shocking ease.

They pulled the pin out of a grenade and stuffed it up their own buttholes (Reynolds is the one obsessed with the perineum as we can see by the published texts, along with his wife’s gentle oral practices). If Wallace scores a hit off of them, it’s because they cleared the path for him in their absolute joint arrogance that they can treat anyone like trash and they have to take it in silence.

That last paragraph of yours…did I miss these texts from RR and Blake? 😳

Dp, but check out the texts released yesterday, Daily Mail Online

Perfect! Thank you

I am Team Justin but the “never with teeth” sounds like she was saying that she does the whole “spicy girl”thing in a nice way and not a mean one. I didn’t find it sexual at all and I think it tracks because she appears to be very passive aggressive in most of her interviews. I only saw one text from Ryan “the I adore you” one. I must be missing something.

+1

[Anonymous]

I also don't get what test from Ryan PP is referencing.

[Anonymous]

^text

[Anonymous]

Watching a “hot scene” on Virgin River right now and this lawsuit has ruined it for me. My first thought is there an intimacy coordinator on set? Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just so interesting to watch play out. It’s always nice to see someone who won’t back down. No matter what, the golden couple loses.

+1
I've just been sort of dipping in and out of all of this, and I have to say - I really admire Baldoni for standing up for himself and not just caving the way so many would when accused of sexual harassment, etc. I'm not a huge fan of his, but I admire anyone who is willing to defend himself from (what certainly appears to be) false accusations.

After watching the horrible way she treated that interviewer, I can never look at her the same way.

He’s tenacious and backed by a billionaire who knows him from church, who appears to care about Baldoni in a genuine way. I think Baldoni is human and as imperfect as we each are, but I think he’s truly trying to walk this modern feminist walk and I am glad he’s got support. I find what RR and BL did to him was abhorrent. They wanted to alpha him, steal from him, humiliate him, and then force him to issue a groveling apology. It’s amazing that he can stand against it and I hope he, Heath, and their wives are heartened by the seeming change in public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Planting stories, unless false, seems even less actionable to me! Maybe it's because I think celebrity PR is sort of inherently bereft of dignity, but something like re-introducing old (but verified) interviews seems...fine? Sure, it's a powerplay. But again, you couldn't do this without the underlying footage.

The factual question will really be whether he did this PR stuff in retaliation for her SH claims (as she is arguing) or completely separately (as he says) to protect himself from the bad PR that was coming out of how she treated him during the movie press tour and PR. It will be pretty tough to untangle IMO.

I think it will be relatively easy to untangle.

PR activity to boost Baldoni's positive press, get him interviews, place positive stories about him, even seeding positive comments about him on social media using Jed Wallace/bots (as unsavory as that practice is IMO) -- not retaliation.

PR activity to attack Lively, place negative stories about her in the press, seed social media with negative comments and discussion of her whether via his PR firm or using Jed Wallace/bots -- maybe retaliation (depending on whether the underlying sexual harassment claims survive).

Lively has some other stuff in her complaint kind of arguing that Baldoni intentionally deviated from Sony's marketing strategy for the movie in order to look Lively look bad (by talking about DV and DV survivors while Lively was talking about "wear your florals"). I think that's much dicier and unlikely to go far unless the underlying SH claims are viewed as very strong.

So it really may come down to exactly what the stories were that they were planting or what the comments were that they were having Wallace seed online. If they were exclusively about Baldoni and how he's great, I don't think there's any retaliation claim. If they were about Lively, I think he has a problem.

That isn’t how it will work, not even remotely. He can still win if he placed negative stories about her if he can show it was in response to actions she took to hurt his reputation.

“Gordon Reynolds” was thanked by Lively in the end credits of IEWU. “Gordon Reynolds” was in the end credits as portraying “Nicepool,” the nasty, killed off character satirizing Baldoni in the Deadpool-Wolverine film. Lipstick Alley has a thread, started today on the celebrity gossip part of the board, showing screenshots of now-deleted Reels by the trainer who Baldoni went to regarding whether he’d be able to lift Lively without destroying his back muscles. The idiot trainer has been a friend of RR and BL for years, laughed at Baldoni being satirized, and tried to delete the stories he liked and laughed at in his social media being harshly critical of Baldoni.

Lively and Reynolds engaged in an extensive and expensive all-out reputational eviscerating of Baldoni across a theatrically released international blockbuster film that Baldoni had nothing to do with. They flooded social media and had friends repost stories cruelly critical of Baldoni, mocking him publicly, at the same time. This PR sht she claims is a projection of what she and her team are fully guilty of and which we can see and verify with shocking ease.

They pulled the pin out of a grenade and stuffed it up their own buttholes (Reynolds is the one obsessed with the perineum as we can see by the published texts, along with his wife’s gentle oral practices). If Wallace scores a hit off of them, it’s because they cleared the path for him in their absolute joint arrogance that they can treat anyone like trash and they have to take it in silence.

That last paragraph of yours…did I miss these texts from RR and Blake? 😳

Dp, but check out the texts released yesterday, Daily Mail Online

Perfect! Thank you

I am Team Justin but the “never with teeth” sounds like she was saying that she does the whole “spicy girl”thing in a nice way and not a mean one. I didn’t find it sexual at all and I think it tracks because she appears to be very passive aggressive in most of her interviews. I only saw one text from Ryan “the I adore you” one. I must be missing something.

+1

It’s in the suit - I can’t locate it but it’s in an US mag online story and he writes that he’ll have Baldoni’s schedule coordinator’s face tattooed on his own perineum if Baldoni changes tbe production to favor their (RR/BL) preferred (and requiring cost overruns) schedule.

The point of that and no teeth, which 90% of folks read as BJ related (and she’s referenced her own anus and suppositories in other texts) is to blur boundaries with their Jackass-level humor and wheedle Baldoni to voluntarily concede power. It’s gross and manipulative and less dignified than literally anything Steve-O ever did.