Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Are Ryan’s and Blake getting divorced?

Probably not any time soon. Would look bad for both of them. But dumb of him to scrub all of the past Blake posts. There is speculation that he’s just trying to distract from the Robert Downey Jr. press. His whole brand is nice, funny guy, and when a huge star is beefing with him, it pokes holes in that.

what did he do to Robert? Or Robert do to him? I know dead pool is insanely popular but iron man is the sun in marvel.

I am not good with the comic book scene, but I believe they are both part of the marvel universe. Or at least Deadpool intersects with marvel sometimes. And there’s this new avengers movie that Ryan was going to have a role in. It’s not a Deadpool movie. I think his character is going to be in the movie and Robert Downey Jr. is of course a big marvel guy and was also going to be in it. Apparently they were both on set at the same time and ryan has a very dry and crass sense of humor. But it just did not go over well with RDJ and I think there was some like, if he’s going to be on set I’m not going to be on set type of drama.

And the speculation that I saw was that Ryan has such a big ego he thinks everyone is gonna be on board with his brand of humor. But Robert was not having it.

I always got the feeling that Ryan is one of those guys that will force you to fake laugh at his relentless “jokes” no matter how awkward and tiresome it is.

[Anonymous]

Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a sign of Blake on Ryan’s instagram anymore. Wiped clear of all of last years mothers day and birthdays etc.

But they are winning! Destroying their careers and marriage was totally the plan. They are playing chess while we are playing checkers.

how do you guys even catch these things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

The issue here was auto deletion AFTER the defendant received a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff. Not a similar fact pattern at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

The issue here was auto deletion AFTER the defendant received a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff. Not a similar fact pattern at all.

Again, that's why it's relevant that Wallace appears to have been told that the campaign against Lively stemmed from an underlying employment conflict. Had he been hired without being informed of the nature of the conflict between Wayfarer and Lively, he could plead ignorance if the litigation risk. But he appears to have known.

If you look at the standard the court applied in that case and how they applied it, it's not that hard to see how this court could make a similar finding as to Wallace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

The issue here was auto deletion AFTER the defendant received a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff. Not a similar fact pattern at all.

Again, that's why it's relevant that Wallace appears to have been told that the campaign against Lively stemmed from an underlying employment conflict. Had he been hired without being informed of the nature of the conflict between Wayfarer and Lively, he could plead ignorance if the litigation risk. But he appears to have known.

If you look at the standard the court applied in that case and how they applied it, it's not that hard to see how this court could make a similar finding as to Wallace.

It is if you are a thinking person. This guy was the TARGET of a cease and desist letter, and was sued shortly afterwards. Further it’s a district court case from Southern Ohio.

[Anonymous]

Blake subpoenaed Megan Kelly, getting more desperate by the week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake subpoenaed Megan Kelly, getting more desperate by the week.

No one gets away with calling Blake a b-word!

https://x.com/innercitypress/status/1951796963793686896
SDNY Blake Lively Subpoena Quashing Blues
by Matthew Russell Lee
Everybody hates me / So I'm gonna sue them
Every tweet & TikTok / I will make them rue them
Even sue the law firm / To make them list their clients
Abuse the legal system / Not an art but science

[Anonymous]

Is there any live tweet from the Perez hearing in Nevada?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any live tweet from the Perez hearing in Nevada?

Replying to myself. Found this on reddit, a live report from Popcorned Planet at 1:17 from a woman who was present in court. https://youtu.be/km-rYISoPUQ?t=4626

The Nevada judge will wait to see whether Liman will hear the case. Says the judge seemed like he wanted to help Perez, but Perez wasn't picking up on the hints. The commentator doesn't like Blake's attorney. The Nevada judge has been in touch with Liman and apparently Blake's attorney said another court in California said they would transfer so they wouldn't step on Liman's toes. Follow up hearing in a week.

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

But anyway, Perez has moved today to quash the subpoena on the basis that Liman has now ordered Wayfarer to produce the same documents. And then later today Liman denied Blake's MTC for lack of personal jurisdiction, but without prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

Tells him to be positive. But Perez is very defeated and annoyed, and his prediction on Liman turns out wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a sign of Blake on Ryan’s instagram anymore. Wiped clear of all of last years mothers day and birthdays etc.

But they are winning! Destroying their careers and marriage was totally the plan. They are playing chess while we are playing checkers.

how do you guys even catch these things?

I’m part of a Reddit group call r/itendswithlawsuits whenever something interesting happens someone posts. All it takes is one person looking for a photo of Blake and Taylor suddenly noticing there’s nothing and the page has been scrubbed of any mention of Blake.

People are super curious about this case.

Personally, I find the situation with Blake deposing random accounts super interesting. One SAHM with one single YouTube follower was deposed and she talked about how stressed she was about childcare and representing herself in court. Perez Hilton is being deposed and his posts are hilarious. He wore “his florals” to court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

Tells him to be positive. But Perez is very defeated and annoyed, and his prediction on Liman turns out wrong.

Perez is already a POS so no need to remind him of that.

He should just get a lawyer. Doing this pro SE is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any live tweet from the Perez hearing in Nevada?

Apparently the judge said he was reserving judgment until Liman ruled on jurisdiction. Liman then issued order finding that Court did not have jurisdiction over Perez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

Tells him to be positive. But Perez is very defeated and annoyed, and his prediction on Liman turns out wrong.

Perez is already a POS so no need to remind him of that.

He should just get a lawyer. Doing this pro SE is dumb.

A POS who got a rare win from Liman.