Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

You live in La La land. Blake has already run crying to judge that she could find no evidence to support her allegations because every single bit of it must have been auto deleted by Signal or some such even though she had improper and unfettered access to Jen Abel’s phone for months. There’s no there there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

You live in La La land. Blake has already run crying to judge that she could find no evidence to support her allegations because every single bit of it must have been auto deleted by Signal or some such even though she had improper and unfettered access to Jen Abel’s phone for months. There’s no there there.

You desperately keep tying to convince everyone of that yet we are still moving forward. You must be getting a little worried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

You live in La La land. Blake has already run crying to judge that she could find no evidence to support her allegations because every single bit of it must have been auto deleted by Signal or some such even though she had improper and unfettered access to Jen Abel’s phone for months. There’s no there there.

You desperately keep tying to convince everyone of that yet we are still moving forward. You must be getting a little worried.

Why would we not be moving forward? The only dispositive motions filed by WF are still pending. Not worried at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

This is true -- the discover in Lively's case has revealed messages between Rebel Wilson and TAG instructing them to create a website to take down Amanda Ghost. There's no indication Rebel hired TAG to do any work on her own image, just to attack Ghost.

So you definitely don't just hire crisis PR to do rehabilitative work on your own public image. Certainly that's one thing a crisis PR team might do, but TAG and Melissa Nathan appear to have created a niche practice with these attack websites, and it seems Jed Wallace was part of the business plan because he was the one who built the websites and likely optimized them for SEO so they could have maximum negative impact (the clear intent being that these website be the first thing that comes up when you google someone's name).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that Leslie Sloan was running all over town telling every reporter who would listen that the cast did not get along with Justin. That was blatantly not true. Blake and it looks like Jenny did not seem to get along with Justin.

He had no problem with any of the three main male cast members and Isabel when filming. Ironically, the only problem Isabel had with him was when his team was chasing her down for a subpoena, no doubt to verify that they got along well during the making of the film.

So it would make sense that Justin would want to get in peoples minds that it’s Blake who has never once gotten along with a cast in her 20 years of acting.

Is the way he did that illegal? I have no idea and I’ll leave that to the courts to decide - that certainly seems like it wasn’t retaliation. It was more defense- it certainly sounds like if it was Blake‘s team has no proof and they really should’ve gotten some proof before running to the New York Times - but ridiculous to think that Blake didn’t cause all of this.

She’s the one who made this a PR issue. She had only filed a complaint before the New York Times article. It didn’t make it into a lawsuit until after when Justin forced her hand with his website and now it’s too late to go back for her.

We don't actually know what is true or not. Remember we were told that Jenny's only issue on set was with Heath and the motherhood comment, and now we are learning that Jenny had repeated issues with Justin including some that were similar to Blake's (they both objected to him calling them "sexy" at different points, Jenny felt he violated boundaries by recording their meeting etc.).

Yes, Isabel sent that nice note of thanks to Justin but I don't think you can assume those were her true thoughts. I've been really nice to lots of bad bosses because if they can influence your ability to get your next job, you suck it up and say "thanks, this was so great, you've been wonderful." That's just life. I'd be interested to hear from her directly.

Same with the men on set.

I am genuinely open minded on this. Maybe everyone else had a good experience and Blake, Jenny, and apparently Alex Saks were outliers. Or maybe everyone was gritting their teeth through the entire production and Baldoni and Heath are too full of themselves to tell the difference between people who are genuinely happy on set versus people who are deferring to them because they are the bosses and people don't want to be fired. Other than Blake, Jenny, and Hasan, most of this cast was not well known at all when they were filming and still pretty early in their career and would be unlikely to make it known that they found the director or producer awful.

Also, remember those "HR reports" that came out months and months ago that people speculated were drawn up by Sony HR to document complaints from Blake, Jenny, and Isabel? But then we all thought they were fake because Jenny's especially didn't match up with what we thought we knew about her issues? But now with this new info about her complaints I think maybe that document matched up pretty well. Which makes me wonder if the Isabel one, which was actually the worst one, might also have been true.

A lot of open questions still on this case. I think we know very little of what would actually be presented at trial at this point.

Again, though, there’s a lot of conflating of the issues here. Recording a Zoom meeting where they were rehearsing is sort of standard. I get that she feels uncomfortable, but in no way would any reasonable person call that sexual harassment. I’m sorry but they just wouldn’t. Especially since we’re probably going to find that there were males on the call - he wasn’t just recording her because of her gender.

Second, using the word sexy when people were using that term all over because they were trying to do a movie with love scenes and have sexually appealing characters is not sexual harassment. Do you really think Justin and Blake get roles in movies despite their looks? Of course not they are both good looking people and sex appeal was part of the movie. Blake is filmed all over said telling random crew members how sexy her boots are, and walking around with an absurd amount of cleavage hanging out. Sexiness was part of the movie for him to use that term was not gendered.

The problem is there were these things that happen that made people uncomfortable, and might have been inappropriate, but then they all get lumped under sexual harassment. And then Ryan Reynolds is walking around, calling justin a sexual predator, which is actually defamation and a lie - no predatory behavior has been alleged by anyone including Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

This is true -- the discover in Lively's case has revealed messages between Rebel Wilson and TAG instructing them to create a website to take down Amanda Ghost. There's no indication Rebel hired TAG to do any work on her own image, just to attack Ghost.

So you definitely don't just hire crisis PR to do rehabilitative work on your own public image. Certainly that's one thing a crisis PR team might do, but TAG and Melissa Nathan appear to have created a niche practice with these attack websites, and it seems Jed Wallace was part of the business plan because he was the one who built the websites and likely optimized them for SEO so they could have maximum negative impact (the clear intent being that these website be the first thing that comes up when you google someone's name).

So one hires someone to do a ghost website, there is typically evidence that it occurred. And yet, no such evidence for Lively, probably because no such website existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

You live in La La land. Blake has already run crying to judge that she could find no evidence to support her allegations because every single bit of it must have been auto deleted by Signal or some such even though she had improper and unfettered access to Jen Abel’s phone for months. There’s no there there.

You desperately keep tying to convince everyone of that yet we are still moving forward. You must be getting a little worried.

Why would we not be moving forward? The only dispositive motions filed by WF are still pending. Not worried at all.

Stomping your feet insisting there's nothing to see is ridiculous at this stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that Leslie Sloan was running all over town telling every reporter who would listen that the cast did not get along with Justin. That was blatantly not true. Blake and it looks like Jenny did not seem to get along with Justin.

He had no problem with any of the three main male cast members and Isabel when filming. Ironically, the only problem Isabel had with him was when his team was chasing her down for a subpoena, no doubt to verify that they got along well during the making of the film.

So it would make sense that Justin would want to get in peoples minds that it’s Blake who has never once gotten along with a cast in her 20 years of acting.

Is the way he did that illegal? I have no idea and I’ll leave that to the courts to decide - that certainly seems like it wasn’t retaliation. It was more defense- it certainly sounds like if it was Blake‘s team has no proof and they really should’ve gotten some proof before running to the New York Times - but ridiculous to think that Blake didn’t cause all of this.

She’s the one who made this a PR issue. She had only filed a complaint before the New York Times article. It didn’t make it into a lawsuit until after when Justin forced her hand with his website and now it’s too late to go back for her.

We don't actually know what is true or not. Remember we were told that Jenny's only issue on set was with Heath and the motherhood comment, and now we are learning that Jenny had repeated issues with Justin including some that were similar to Blake's (they both objected to him calling them "sexy" at different points, Jenny felt he violated boundaries by recording their meeting etc.).

Yes, Isabel sent that nice note of thanks to Justin but I don't think you can assume those were her true thoughts. I've been really nice to lots of bad bosses because if they can influence your ability to get your next job, you suck it up and say "thanks, this was so great, you've been wonderful." That's just life. I'd be interested to hear from her directly.

Same with the men on set.

I am genuinely open minded on this. Maybe everyone else had a good experience and Blake, Jenny, and apparently Alex Saks were outliers. Or maybe everyone was gritting their teeth through the entire production and Baldoni and Heath are too full of themselves to tell the difference between people who are genuinely happy on set versus people who are deferring to them because they are the bosses and people don't want to be fired. Other than Blake, Jenny, and Hasan, most of this cast was not well known at all when they were filming and still pretty early in their career and would be unlikely to make it known that they found the director or producer awful.

Also, remember those "HR reports" that came out months and months ago that people speculated were drawn up by Sony HR to document complaints from Blake, Jenny, and Isabel? But then we all thought they were fake because Jenny's especially didn't match up with what we thought we knew about her issues? But now with this new info about her complaints I think maybe that document matched up pretty well. Which makes me wonder if the Isabel one, which was actually the worst one, might also have been true.

A lot of open questions still on this case. I think we know very little of what would actually be presented at trial at this point.

Can you remind me what the substance of those alleges complaints was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

You live in La La land. Blake has already run crying to judge that she could find no evidence to support her allegations because every single bit of it must have been auto deleted by Signal or some such even though she had improper and unfettered access to Jen Abel’s phone for months. There’s no there there.

You desperately keep tying to convince everyone of that yet we are still moving forward. You must be getting a little worried.

Why would we not be moving forward? The only dispositive motions filed by WF are still pending. Not worried at all.

Stomping your feet insisting there's nothing to see is ridiculous at this stage.

At the summary judgment stage? We’ve seen both Blake’s opposition and the reply briefs (From which we can tell a lot about the redacted parts of Blake’s opposition). Very underwhelming.

Honestly, however, we are arguing about dispute fact issues. WF’s best chances with the dispositive motions are actually with respect to choice of law and Blake’s contract and employment status arguments. A lot of her claims are at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what term should be used for hiring a crisis PR firm to promote negative information about a person through social media in order to vilify them?

You don’t hire a crisis P.R. firm to attack another person, you hire them to defend yourself. This is presumably also why Blake hired Nick Shapiro after her lawsuit backfired on the pr front.

In any case, it’s Blake and her lawyers who keep calling it a smear campaign — even The NY Times article had smear in the title.

This is just clearly wrong, though. From evidence we’ve seen, we know that celebrities hire crisis PR firms — and, specifically, hire Melissa Nathan’s crisis PR firm TAG — to defend them but also create defamatory websites attacking their enemies. While at the e same time hiring Bryan Freedman as their lawyer.

So you’re just typing out lies here hoping people believe your version rather than the truth. Similar to Amber Heard.

You live in La La land. Blake has already run crying to judge that she could find no evidence to support her allegations because every single bit of it must have been auto deleted by Signal or some such even though she had improper and unfettered access to Jen Abel’s phone for months. There’s no there there.

You desperately keep tying to convince everyone of that yet we are still moving forward. You must be getting a little worried.

Why would we not be moving forward? The only dispositive motions filed by WF are still pending. Not worried at all.

Stomping your feet insisting there's nothing to see is ridiculous at this stage.

At the summary judgment stage? We’ve seen both Blake’s opposition and the reply briefs (From which we can tell a lot about the redacted parts of Blake’s opposition). Very underwhelming.

Honestly, however, we are arguing about dispute fact issues. WF’s best chances with the dispositive motions are actually with respect to choice of law and Blake’s contract and employment status arguments. A lot of her claims are at risk.

Baldoni PR hard at work today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that Leslie Sloan was running all over town telling every reporter who would listen that the cast did not get along with Justin. That was blatantly not true. Blake and it looks like Jenny did not seem to get along with Justin.

He had no problem with any of the three main male cast members and Isabel when filming. Ironically, the only problem Isabel had with him was when his team was chasing her down for a subpoena, no doubt to verify that they got along well during the making of the film.

So it would make sense that Justin would want to get in peoples minds that it’s Blake who has never once gotten along with a cast in her 20 years of acting.

Is the way he did that illegal? I have no idea and I’ll leave that to the courts to decide - that certainly seems like it wasn’t retaliation. It was more defense- it certainly sounds like if it was Blake‘s team has no proof and they really should’ve gotten some proof before running to the New York Times - but ridiculous to think that Blake didn’t cause all of this.

She’s the one who made this a PR issue. She had only filed a complaint before the New York Times article. It didn’t make it into a lawsuit until after when Justin forced her hand with his website and now it’s too late to go back for her.

We don't actually know what is true or not. Remember we were told that Jenny's only issue on set was with Heath and the motherhood comment, and now we are learning that Jenny had repeated issues with Justin including some that were similar to Blake's (they both objected to him calling them "sexy" at different points, Jenny felt he violated boundaries by recording their meeting etc.).

Yes, Isabel sent that nice note of thanks to Justin but I don't think you can assume those were her true thoughts. I've been really nice to lots of bad bosses because if they can influence your ability to get your next job, you suck it up and say "thanks, this was so great, you've been wonderful." That's just life. I'd be interested to hear from her directly.

Same with the men on set.

I am genuinely open minded on this. Maybe everyone else had a good experience and Blake, Jenny, and apparently Alex Saks were outliers. Or maybe everyone was gritting their teeth through the entire production and Baldoni and Heath are too full of themselves to tell the difference between people who are genuinely happy on set versus people who are deferring to them because they are the bosses and people don't want to be fired. Other than Blake, Jenny, and Hasan, most of this cast was not well known at all when they were filming and still pretty early in their career and would be unlikely to make it known that they found the director or producer awful.

Also, remember those "HR reports" that came out months and months ago that people speculated were drawn up by Sony HR to document complaints from Blake, Jenny, and Isabel? But then we all thought they were fake because Jenny's especially didn't match up with what we thought we knew about her issues? But now with this new info about her complaints I think maybe that document matched up pretty well. Which makes me wonder if the Isabel one, which was actually the worst one, might also have been true.

A lot of open questions still on this case. I think we know very little of what would actually be presented at trial at this point.

Again, though, there’s a lot of conflating of the issues here. Recording a Zoom meeting where they were rehearsing is sort of standard. I get that she feels uncomfortable, but in no way would any reasonable person call that sexual harassment. I’m sorry but they just wouldn’t. Especially since we’re probably going to find that there were males on the call - he wasn’t just recording her because of her gender.

Second, using the word sexy when people were using that term all over because they were trying to do a movie with love scenes and have sexually appealing characters is not sexual harassment. Do you really think Justin and Blake get roles in movies despite their looks? Of course not they are both good looking people and sex appeal was part of the movie. Blake is filmed all over said telling random crew members how sexy her boots are, and walking around with an absurd amount of cleavage hanging out. Sexiness was part of the movie for him to use that term was not gendered.

The problem is there were these things that happen that made people uncomfortable, and might have been inappropriate, but then they all get lumped under sexual harassment. And then Ryan Reynolds is walking around, calling justin a sexual predator, which is actually defamation and a lie - no predatory behavior has been alleged by anyone including Blake.

I'm not conflating anything, I wasn't even talking about Lively's SH allegations.

The question was whether everyone in the cast disliked Justin, or just Blake and Jenny. You don't have to commit SH to be widely disliked by people who work for you!

And we don't know. We have enough evidence to believe that clearly Blake and Jenny both disliked Justin and Jamey from early in the production and vocalized their issues with him. We know Alex Saks had some issues with him starting in pre-production. Alex also testified in her deposition that one of the production heads told her on his last day that he felt like he was "leaving a cult", indicating that he also had a negative work experience.

We don't know about Isabel or any of the men in the cast. Presumably we will find out, but right now we don't actually know how they felt during production or if they liked Justin.

Which means that we don't know if Leslie Sloane telling a journalist that "the whole cast hates Justin" was accurate or not. We know two cast members definitely disliked him from very early on, and the rest are a question mark.

[Anonymous]

I thought someone's depo said only Hasan ended up on speaking terms with Justin. It might have been Heath but just don't remember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that Leslie Sloan was running all over town telling every reporter who would listen that the cast did not get along with Justin. That was blatantly not true. Blake and it looks like Jenny did not seem to get along with Justin.

He had no problem with any of the three main male cast members and Isabel when filming. Ironically, the only problem Isabel had with him was when his team was chasing her down for a subpoena, no doubt to verify that they got along well during the making of the film.

So it would make sense that Justin would want to get in peoples minds that it’s Blake who has never once gotten along with a cast in her 20 years of acting.

Is the way he did that illegal? I have no idea and I’ll leave that to the courts to decide - that certainly seems like it wasn’t retaliation. It was more defense- it certainly sounds like if it was Blake‘s team has no proof and they really should’ve gotten some proof before running to the New York Times - but ridiculous to think that Blake didn’t cause all of this.

She’s the one who made this a PR issue. She had only filed a complaint before the New York Times article. It didn’t make it into a lawsuit until after when Justin forced her hand with his website and now it’s too late to go back for her.

We don't actually know what is true or not. Remember we were told that Jenny's only issue on set was with Heath and the motherhood comment, and now we are learning that Jenny had repeated issues with Justin including some that were similar to Blake's (they both objected to him calling them "sexy" at different points, Jenny felt he violated boundaries by recording their meeting etc.).

Yes, Isabel sent that nice note of thanks to Justin but I don't think you can assume those were her true thoughts. I've been really nice to lots of bad bosses because if they can influence your ability to get your next job, you suck it up and say "thanks, this was so great, you've been wonderful." That's just life. I'd be interested to hear from her directly.

Same with the men on set.

I am genuinely open minded on this. Maybe everyone else had a good experience and Blake, Jenny, and apparently Alex Saks were outliers. Or maybe everyone was gritting their teeth through the entire production and Baldoni and Heath are too full of themselves to tell the difference between people who are genuinely happy on set versus people who are deferring to them because they are the bosses and people don't want to be fired. Other than Blake, Jenny, and Hasan, most of this cast was not well known at all when they were filming and still pretty early in their career and would be unlikely to make it known that they found the director or producer awful.

Also, remember those "HR reports" that came out months and months ago that people speculated were drawn up by Sony HR to document complaints from Blake, Jenny, and Isabel? But then we all thought they were fake because Jenny's especially didn't match up with what we thought we knew about her issues? But now with this new info about her complaints I think maybe that document matched up pretty well. Which makes me wonder if the Isabel one, which was actually the worst one, might also have been true.

A lot of open questions still on this case. I think we know very little of what would actually be presented at trial at this point.

Again, though, there’s a lot of conflating of the issues here. Recording a Zoom meeting where they were rehearsing is sort of standard. I get that she feels uncomfortable, but in no way would any reasonable person call that sexual harassment. I’m sorry but they just wouldn’t. Especially since we’re probably going to find that there were males on the call - he wasn’t just recording her because of her gender.

Second, using the word sexy when people were using that term all over because they were trying to do a movie with love scenes and have sexually appealing characters is not sexual harassment. Do you really think Justin and Blake get roles in movies despite their looks? Of course not they are both good looking people and sex appeal was part of the movie. Blake is filmed all over said telling random crew members how sexy her boots are, and walking around with an absurd amount of cleavage hanging out. Sexiness was part of the movie for him to use that term was not gendered.

The problem is there were these things that happen that made people uncomfortable, and might have been inappropriate, but then they all get lumped under sexual harassment. And then Ryan Reynolds is walking around, calling justin a sexual predator, which is actually defamation and a lie - no predatory behavior has been alleged by anyone including Blake.

I'm not conflating anything, I wasn't even talking about Lively's SH allegations.

The question was whether everyone in the cast disliked Justin, or just Blake and Jenny. You don't have to commit SH to be widely disliked by people who work for you!

And we don't know. We have enough evidence to believe that clearly Blake and Jenny both disliked Justin and Jamey from early in the production and vocalized their issues with him. We know Alex Saks had some issues with him starting in pre-production. Alex also testified in her deposition that one of the production heads told her on his last day that he felt like he was "leaving a cult", indicating that he also had a negative work experience.

We don't know about Isabel or any of the men in the cast. Presumably we will find out, but right now we don't actually know how they felt during production or if they liked Justin.

Which means that we don't know if Leslie Sloane telling a journalist that "the whole cast hates Justin" was accurate or not. We know two cast members definitely disliked him from very early on, and the rest are a question mark.

They are alleging SH and their claims to back that up have largely fallen apart, and all that are left or claims like no one liked him, he recorded a Zoom meeting, he used the word sexy. At this stage, it’s clear they don’t actually have evidence of sexual harassment - so yes, all wedging that no one liked him on set is essentially the crux of their case.

Actually, this whole post makes no sense. We do have proof Isabel never complained to HR and wrote Justin a gushing text taking him for the comfort and safety he n set. The only reason Isabel seems mad at Justin is because his team chased her down for a subpoena well after the shoot was over.

We absolutely have proof that Leslie went to several reporters and said Justin was not liked on set. Their emails and depositions proving proofing this from way back at the beginning.

You don’t seem to be very familiar with this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought someone's depo said only Hasan ended up on speaking terms with Justin. It might have been Heath but just don't remember.

That’s a lie. Isabel sent him a text after the shoot and they were clearly on good terms. There’s no evidence that he had any problems with Brandon on set either, and there’s no evidence that young atlas was having problems with him.

Hassan clearly was more than just on speaking terms, he presented him with an award as late as December 2024 well after shooting, promotion and premier.

Lots of revisionist history here, but the facts are the facts.