Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

[Anonymous]

I feel like I've asked this a dozen times, but I always forget the answer: what bearing does the metadata have on the case again and what would it mean if the NYTimes got the complaint early?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Astroturfing other people isn’t relevant to the claims here. Jed would fight discovery requests here and I’d be surprised if a judge allows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Astroturfing other people isn’t relevant to the claims here. Jed would fight discovery requests here and I’d be surprised if a judge allows it.

It would if they were using it to establish that Nathan and Abel knew Wallace did that kind of work -- it could be used against Nathan and Abel, and potentially Baldoni, if not Wallace.

Which, since they worked for Johnny Depp, might mean subpoenaing any work Wallace might have done for Depp, to establish what Nathan and Abel expected when Wallace was hired.

If Wallace truly did no astroturfing for Baldoni maybe none of this matters. But if it turns out he did any, Nathan/Abel/Baldoni might argue that it was not authorized or not what they expected. Wallace's prior work for their team would then become relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they had access to the complaint but I think they probably were talking to Blake and her team extensively about the SH/retaliation allegations far in advance. I don't even know if that matters though *shrug*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

They would not get discovery about his other clients. They would only be entitled to documents/testimony relevant to Blake and Justin. Just like Justin would only get discovery relevant to Taylor, Ryan and the movie cast/crew, not all of Blake’s friends. Do us all a favor and stop pretending to be a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

They would not get discovery about his other clients. They would only be entitled to documents/testimony relevant to Blake and Justin. Just like Justin would only get discovery relevant to Taylor, Ryan and the movie cast/crew, not all of Blake’s friends. Do us all a favor and stop pretending to be a lawyer.

DP and not PP you are responding to but let me suggest you cease the personal attacks so the almighty thread can stay open. *prays to thread*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Absolutely not. This is a deluded take.

[Anonymous]

Going through the complaint again and while I'm on Justin's side and believe Blake steamrolled them, the one aspect I think Justin's team is distorting a bit is Sony's role in all of this (understandably, since there were some employees who were kind to Justin, and they're not the ones suing him).

They are sort of trying let Sony off the hook in some instances, while saying they enabled her in other instances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement from Lively’s lawyers. What sexual harassment is she talking about?

"This is an age-old story: A woman speaks up with concrete evidence of sexual harassment and retaliation and the abuser attempts to turn the tables on the victim. This is what experts call DARVO. Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim Offender," the team said in a statement. "In short, while the victim focuses on the abuse, the abuser focuses on the victim. The strategy of attacking the woman is desperate, it does not refute the evidence in Ms. Lively's complaint, and it will fail."

So desperate and sad. Blake and her team are like out of touch boomers. If you think DCUM is "harsh" you outta see TikTok. She and Ryan are being roasted in hyper viral posts...organically.

+10000. This story would have played differently 5 years ago. But on the other side of MeToo, we're all a bit more skeptical of these claims and more open to believing that women *do* have agency and they *are* clever and they are just as likely as men to engage in vicious politics.

In this case, a billionaire couple is claiming to be victimized by a relatively obscure actor. The facts of the situation don't fit the case (and the fact that she demanded her own edit of the film clearly demonstrates that she had more power than most actors). But they are trying to make this fit the MeToo mold thinking it will work, and not realizing that the zeitgeist has completely changed.

If BL and RR had any sense at all, they'd find a way to wrap this up before BL gets Amber Herded. Because if this continues, BL's career will be completely overshadowed by courtroom clips and salacious gossip. And her marriage will take a hit the more that comes out (if the texts JB's camp released are any indication). They overplayed their hand and need to figure out a way to back out before this defines them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

Np and lawyer. I don’t think they lied in their statement, but I think it was carefully worded to be slightly misleading. They clearly worked with Blake well before she filed her complaint and this issue goes straight to the heart of their best defamation defense- Fair report.

I also think that their first PR statement- how they ‘meticulously reported’ this story or something like that will bite them in the ass. How do you ‘meticulously’ report a story and not speak to the other side???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Astroturfing other people isn’t relevant to the claims here. Jed would fight discovery requests here and I’d be surprised if a judge allows it.

It would if they were using it to establish that Nathan and Abel knew Wallace did that kind of work -- it could be used against Nathan and Abel, and potentially Baldoni, if not Wallace.

Which, since they worked for Johnny Depp, might mean subpoenaing any work Wallace might have done for Depp, to establish what Nathan and Abel expected when Wallace was hired.

If Wallace truly did no astroturfing for Baldoni maybe none of this matters. But if it turns out he did any, Nathan/Abel/Baldoni might argue that it was not authorized or not what they expected. Wallace's prior work for their team would then become relevant.

This isn’t relevant at all for these claims. It’s a classic fishing expedition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Astroturfing other people isn’t relevant to the claims here. Jed would fight discovery requests here and I’d be surprised if a judge allows it.

It would if they were using it to establish that Nathan and Abel knew Wallace did that kind of work -- it could be used against Nathan and Abel, and potentially Baldoni, if not Wallace.

Which, since they worked for Johnny Depp, might mean subpoenaing any work Wallace might have done for Depp, to establish what Nathan and Abel expected when Wallace was hired.

If Wallace truly did no astroturfing for Baldoni maybe none of this matters. But if it turns out he did any, Nathan/Abel/Baldoni might argue that it was not authorized or not what they expected. Wallace's prior work for their team would then become relevant.

This isn’t relevant at all for these claims. It’s a classic fishing expedition.

+100000
No way would a judge allow this.