Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the problems here lie with Abel’s judgment. She’s the one who recommended Melissa to Justin and she’s the one who didn’t run out the door with her work phone when Stephanie Jones asked for it. Stephanie would’ve had to physically pry that device from my hands.

I definitely think both Able and Nathan played fast and loose here, I think arrogantly based on past success. I am still not sure if they actually did anything actionable, but it was STUPID to discuss Baldoni's situation the way they did in texts (and stupid for Baldoni to participate) and also stupid to toss around Wallace's name.

One issue for me is that I can tell they are self-aggrandizing in some of these texts, taking responsibility for things they might not actually even have done. It makes it hard to tell exactly what they did for Baldoni. I actually think it's possible they were claiming a lot of the bad press Lively was getting was thanks to their work when in actuality it was organic.

It's funny when I see people getting defensive of Able and Nathan and trying to portray them as private professionals who just got dragged into this by Lively. Nope. Even if you 100% believe Baldoni, I don't really care what happens to these two. They, and people like them, are parasites IMO.

I agree. Like when Melissa says Jed is turning the tide I have no idea if it’s just puffery or if he did actually plant extensive stories, and then if so, whether they were truth, lies, unfavorable to Blake or just favorable to Justin. Which makes it hard to tell how strong the case against Jed is.

Thank you!! This is why they're only are they going to look into the tactics he uses a in this case but his previous cases as well. It's discovery 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above poster, I am not a lawyer, but I fund this conversation interesting. Would you please explain why if some podcasters said the NYT did have risk, then why won’t others come out in support of the ‘beloved’ NYT. What am I missing. I agree with poster that indicated there is a difference between the NYT not having the filing, which is what NYT said correct? But having information that was in the filing likely from someone on BL’s ‘team’.

See the post a few above. It’s a touchy time in media and for first amendment law. The NYT is the elite of this little world. I find it curious and a bit noteworthy that people in this world who really know the law aren’t coming out strong to defend them.

“Touchy times” doesn’t mean Baldoni is anywhere close to a plausible pleading. The relative silence on this case probably means that the 1A experts are not super interested in this case because it’s one of the many cases filed against the Times. It’s nowhere near the interest as the Palin case (or Dominion case) because it is weak.

Not disagreeing with your overarching point, but I feel like lawyers are more likely to follow political cases more closely more than celebrity-related ones, or at least celebrity ones featuring two actors who are actually not that big.

The Palin case was extremely weak but I don’t see much chatter about it even though I think it’s going back to trial, do you? Maybe I missed it.

The Depp case was weak too fwiw.

What orgs do you follow in this space?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

It’s pretty basic in the law of evidence that you don’t get to introduce evidence of a party’s past acts or “character” unless it has been put into play by the party himself or some other narrow exceptions.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.

The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious.

+1 though I don't think it's suspicious so much as reflects this weird approach to this case where whoever you believe dictates your opinion even on legal procedural matters. It's really reductive and I don't get it because these are just discussions of legal strategy and viability of certain motions or approaches.

It's just boring. If your take is "I agree with X party and therefore everything their legal team does is genius and correct and sure to be successful, and everything the other side's legal team does is stupid and misguided and has no legal foundation," then there is no reason in a discussion at all.

I'm a lawyer and like talking about the legal stuff. I don't really consider myself team anyone.

Good point. It's suspicious in the sense those people are incredibly biased and not looking at it objectively. I am not a lawyer but the company i work for as had a few federal lawsuits in the past where the discovery involved clients that weren't involved. The client's identities were protected but the information was still given over. The same will happen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of the problems here lie with Abel’s judgment. She’s the one who recommended Melissa to Justin and she’s the one who didn’t run out the door with her work phone when Stephanie Jones asked for it. Stephanie would’ve had to physically pry that device from my hands.

I honestly think that would've made the situation worst. Stephanie was getting that phone and messages one way or another. This same situation would've played out with Blake going to NYT but at a later date. She should've done her shady stuff on a second phone. It doesn't matter her personal number was ported on the work phone. She lost her rights to privacy by doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the problems here lie with Abel’s judgment. She’s the one who recommended Melissa to Justin and she’s the one who didn’t run out the door with her work phone when Stephanie Jones asked for it. Stephanie would’ve had to physically pry that device from my hands.

I honestly think that would've made the situation worst. Stephanie was getting that phone and messages one way or another. This same situation would've played out with Blake going to NYT but at a later date. She should've done her shady stuff on a second phone. It doesn't matter her personal number was ported on the work phone. She lost her rights to privacy by doing it.

One idea is that she should not have done "shady stuff."

Nathan and Abel were power mad because they got everyone on the internet to believe that Johnny Depp was a *victim*. Which I agree, is crazy. I guess I'd be power mad if I did that too. But I wouldn't do that because I have ethics.

The PR angle on these lawsuits is a great example of FAFO -- play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Anonymous]

"January 4, 2024: Baldoni, Heath, a Sony executive, a producer, the “A-list producer,” and the
Film’s 1st AD met at Lively and Reynolds’ New York apartment ahead of the scheduled
production restart on January 4, 2024. The team arrived prepared, with production binders in
hand, eager to kick off the next phase of filming. However, Lively had different intentions for
the meeting. She began by reading from notes on her phone, outlining a series of alleged
infractions from Phase 1. Reynolds then berated Baldoni, demanding Baldoni apologize to
Lively for actions that had either never occurred or had been grossly mischaracterized. Baldoni
resisted apologizing for things he had not done, which further enraged Reynolds. Everyone,
including the new producer Lively had requested to join the production and the Sony
representative, left the meeting in shock. The new A-list producer remarked that, in their 40-year
career, they had never seen anyone spoken to in such a manner during a meeting. Later, the Sony
representative shared that they often reflected on the meeting and regretted not intervening to
stop Reynolds’ tirade against Baldoni."

This is pretty messed up. They sound like a nightmare to work with AND why is her husband so involved in her work? She has agents and staff why is he so involved can't she handle herself?

Also lol she kept everyone's "infractions" on her phone. I can't. What a total b.

[Anonymous]

She brought her own editor in?! And wanted alone time in the editing room herself with her own editor she's like pushing Justin out of his own movie too! Nuts.

She should really be embarrassed by her behavior.

[Anonymous]

She has no proof he did anything. He has all the proof she's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Her career is over and she’ll never have a profitable lifestyle brand. Ryan’s career should be over too. Frankly he’s way too old for the goofy catty frat boy shtick anyways. Oh well, they have more money than they could ever spend. Hopefully Justin cracks ‘em good for a fat settlement and public apology. I could see Ryan leaving Blake by the end of the year. This scheme falling apart has to have them under tremendous stress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She brought her own editor in?! And wanted alone time in the editing room herself with her own editor she's like pushing Justin out of his own movie too! Nuts.

She should really be embarrassed by her behavior.

She needed an editor & privacy because she’s low IQ and talentless and wanted to steal credit. Like right wing grifters who claim to have written books when a ghost writer wrote everything and they just slapped their name on it.

[Anonymous]

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/06/taylor-swift-blake-lively-manipulated-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-meeting-legal-war/

Knew it. Taylor not worried because her intentions were to help hype up a friend.

[Anonymous]

Oh wow, I know TMZ is morally bankrupt but they do get genuine scoops and have inside sources, and even they’re saying Taylor didn’t like being mentioned by Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/06/taylor-swift-blake-lively-manipulated-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-meeting-legal-war/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/06/taylor-swift-blake-lively-manipulated-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-meeting-legal-war/

Knew it. Taylor not worried because her intentions were to help hype up a friend.

There’s a poster or two here who are either pro Blake or contrarians who said Taylor wouldn’t have minded being mentioned. Either way, I enjoy the debates, but they are being proven wrong on so many points as this case develops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/06/taylor-swift-blake-lively-manipulated-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-meeting-legal-war/

Knew it. Taylor not worried because her intentions were to help hype up a friend.

https://x.com/TMZ/status/1887580449939333382?t=1ZXlqJ_lhVZP7BUDb89BLA&s=19

the source says, "Taylor is also learning Blake has been inappropriately leveraging her name for a long time, like telling a young actress that Taylor 'cast her,' which simply did not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow, I know TMZ is morally bankrupt but they do get genuine scoops and have inside sources, and even they’re saying Taylor didn’t like being mentioned by Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/06/taylor-swift-blake-lively-manipulated-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-meeting-legal-war/

This is entirely believable. Who wants to be used like that?