Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stepping back and coming at this from a big picture perspective, I think some of you are going to be surprised with how high the bar is for SH in court, and the bar is even higher for the entertainment industry.

Since this case, people have been posting past cases women have lost. one that I recall was the Friends writers room - a woman writer was subjected to a horrific work environment, shown p-rn, was the butt of horribly explicit jokes. Treated horribly. And the case was dismissed on the basis that the writers were writing a show with a lot innuendo and crass humor and so that was going to come up.

Which is insane because friends is a very family friendly show, but that gives you a sense of where the bar is. Now granted friends was a long time ago, but I don’t think we’ve made a lot of progress since then. There are other cases where because it’s a Hollywood set people just don’t take it seriously.

The power of the me too movement was that we didn’t have to wait for the courts. Most men implicated in those first few years like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and many others were not caught up in civil or criminal litigation. The beauty of it was that it was finally a time when women could come together to complain about bad behavior and men were held accountable, reputations were tarnished or ruined, often they were fired (unfortunately often with multi million dollar settlements, but it was a start.) They lost their jobs and their reputation and women weren’t being told they were crazy or being punished for speaking up.

I truly think that’s what Blake‘s team saw here which was why the first strategy was to go to the New York Times . I really think that they wanted to lead with the retaliation campaign and have that be the crux of the story but of course, in order to have retaliation, you have to have an element of SH to hold over Baldoni. I do not think they expected to have a SH case in court, and you can this see in their proceedings. A lot of the SH claims has been defanged. People in this thread are still talking about incidents that are no longer being considered in the court and you will not here about if this goes to trial. A lot of it has turned to workplace hostility and they’re still trying to lean on retaliation.

You need to brush up on the law that governs this case. You are making conclusions based on a misunderstanding of the law.

Then why, in an industry where there’s probably a little sexual harassment on every Hollywood set, does nobody go to court? Why when there’s women like Abigail Breslin who’s reasonably successful and has the means, come forward and complain about Aaron Eckhart, causing her such physical harm out of his anger that she needed an MRI - and clearly there is a video of this because they were filming on set - but yet that never saw the inside of a court and Aaron Eckhart is still being cast in movies?

Please explain how easy it is to take these cases to court, especially in this industry because reality shows us otherwise.

Because it usually never makes it to court.

But when it does go to Court, no one better for your star supporting witness that a comedian known for her crass humor that is offended by the word "sexy," but only if uttered by men. Oh, and also is very offended her bosses granted her wish for more expensive housing allowance.

You keep presenting this case as if it will be decided on one point. You don’t even know of that specific claim will come up at trial.

Trials are decided on the cumulative evidence presented. And then the jury will receive instructions on how the law applies to those facts. You keep cherry picking certain things, usually through an interpretation that favors the outcome you prefer, and assume that’s how it will play out in a court of law.

So many people watching this case don’t even understand depositions and why certain things are addressed while others are not.

The most interesting aspect of this case will be which claims survive to trial and how the motions on limine play out. But until then you simply cannot point to one piece of evidence and pretend it’s going to decide a case. Nor can you point to evidence that likely won’t even make it before a jury.

Not true at all, you are the one acting like the mountains of evidence discrediting Blake and her witnesses won't be heard.

Further, I've actually litigated cases before a jury. I can tell you have not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Blake talks about Justin just doesn't match the language of someone fearful of a sexual predator. It just doesn't. Sorry!

Have none of you ever worked in a toxic work environment with a misogynistic boss? It was clearly a toxic work environment. And when you make it toxic / hostile for one particular group of people - be it due to sex, religion, race - then you have a legal problem. The courts are there to decide if the toxicity and hostility amounts to the legal definition required to find racism, sexual harrassment, anti-semitism etc.

But Blake was the boss. Justin was just clowning around apparently.

Wayfarer was the boss and Justin and Jamey were the head representatives of the company on set.

Still haven't read most of the documents. Blake herself says she ran everything.

You do not seem to understand that puffery (JD’s favorite word) does not negate the fact that legally, JB and Jamey were the heads/bosses. And as such, they had certain legal obligations. Not Blake. Wayfarer and those who ran it.

Read up on the effect of being an independent contractor on sexual harassment claims and then get back to us.

I am going to leave that to the judge.

But that still doesn’t make the PGA letter proof that she was in charge in the legal sense. You are trying to make that letter into something it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really need to know what the rest of Hollywood thinks of Blake and Ryan.

Even if they have some well-connected people in their corner, like the Damons, I don't see other producers and directors liking their behavior.

Their careers are over.

Keep telling yourself that. You think Ryan Reynolds won't be just fine? Who knows about Blake. Her issue is far more that she's aging out of leading lady roles and doesn't have the acting chops to go much further. It's Boldoni who has zero chance of recovering. You have a rep for creating a toxic sexist set--even if colleagues aren't sure about Blake they will believe Jenny Slate--you're done. No investors will chance that liability.

Baldoni and Wayfair are done. Didn’t they lie on their insurance paperwork? I don’t see how they even get insured moving forward (assuming anyone would work with them after this). They are a walking lawsuit at this point.

OK, but they are still working with actors like Scarjo and winning all kinds of awards and have a bunch of films coming out? Sure seems like at this point they’re still doing OK.

I see zero films due out in 2026 and none actually in production either. Everything else was in the can and pre-dated the lawsuit. Nice try though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Blake talks about Justin just doesn't match the language of someone fearful of a sexual predator. It just doesn't. Sorry!

Have none of you ever worked in a toxic work environment with a misogynistic boss? It was clearly a toxic work environment. And when you make it toxic / hostile for one particular group of people - be it due to sex, religion, race - then you have a legal problem. The courts are there to decide if the toxicity and hostility amounts to the legal definition required to find racism, sexual harrassment, anti-semitism etc.

But Blake was the boss. Justin was just clowning around apparently.

Wayfarer was the boss and Justin and Jamey were the head representatives of the company on set.

Still haven't read most of the documents. Blake herself says she ran everything.

You do not seem to understand that puffery (JD’s favorite word) does not negate the fact that legally, JB and Jamey were the heads/bosses. And as such, they had certain legal obligations. Not Blake. Wayfarer and those who ran it.

Read up on the effect of being an independent contractor on sexual harassment claims and then get back to us.

I am going to leave that to the judge.

But that still doesn’t make the PGA letter proof that she was in charge in the legal sense. You are trying to make that letter into something it’s not.

Nor does that have to be the case. But her letter makes clear she had a very high degree of agency and controlled and didn’t consider herself beholden to Heath or Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really need to know what the rest of Hollywood thinks of Blake and Ryan.

Even if they have some well-connected people in their corner, like the Damons, I don't see other producers and directors liking their behavior.

Their careers are over.

Keep telling yourself that. You think Ryan Reynolds won't be just fine? Who knows about Blake. Her issue is far more that she's aging out of leading lady roles and doesn't have the acting chops to go much further. It's Boldoni who has zero chance of recovering. You have a rep for creating a toxic sexist set--even if colleagues aren't sure about Blake they will believe Jenny Slate--you're done. No investors will chance that liability.

Baldoni and Wayfair are done. Didn’t they lie on their insurance paperwork? I don’t see how they even get insured moving forward (assuming anyone would work with them after this). They are a walking lawsuit at this point.

OK, but they are still working with actors like Scarjo and winning all kinds of awards and have a bunch of films coming out? Sure seems like at this point they’re still doing OK.

I see zero films due out in 2026 and none actually in production either. Everything else was in the can and pre-dated the lawsuit. Nice try though!

Looks like Baldoni has a project in post production, seems possible that is released this year.

[Anonymous]

All the actresses banded together and refused to do any promotion with Boldoni. No way they'd all want professional drama without there being any 'there' there. Their depositions will in all likelihood demonstrate consistency re: the SH claims. It's not just Blake, and not just Jenny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stepping back and coming at this from a big picture perspective, I think some of you are going to be surprised with how high the bar is for SH in court, and the bar is even higher for the entertainment industry.

Since this case, people have been posting past cases women have lost. one that I recall was the Friends writers room - a woman writer was subjected to a horrific work environment, shown p-rn, was the butt of horribly explicit jokes. Treated horribly. And the case was dismissed on the basis that the writers were writing a show with a lot innuendo and crass humor and so that was going to come up.

Which is insane because friends is a very family friendly show, but that gives you a sense of where the bar is. Now granted friends was a long time ago, but I don’t think we’ve made a lot of progress since then. There are other cases where because it’s a Hollywood set people just don’t take it seriously.

The power of the me too movement was that we didn’t have to wait for the courts. Most men implicated in those first few years like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and many others were not caught up in civil or criminal litigation. The beauty of it was that it was finally a time when women could come together to complain about bad behavior and men were held accountable, reputations were tarnished or ruined, often they were fired (unfortunately often with multi million dollar settlements, but it was a start.) They lost their jobs and their reputation and women weren’t being told they were crazy or being punished for speaking up.

I truly think that’s what Blake‘s team saw here which was why the first strategy was to go to the New York Times . I really think that they wanted to lead with the retaliation campaign and have that be the crux of the story but of course, in order to have retaliation, you have to have an element of SH to hold over Baldoni. I do not think they expected to have a SH case in court, and you can this see in their proceedings. A lot of the SH claims has been defanged. People in this thread are still talking about incidents that are no longer being considered in the court and you will not here about if this goes to trial. A lot of it has turned to workplace hostility and they’re still trying to lean on retaliation.

You need to brush up on the law that governs this case. You are making conclusions based on a misunderstanding of the law.

Then why, in an industry where there’s probably a little sexual harassment on every Hollywood set, does nobody go to court? Why when there’s women like Abigail Breslin who’s reasonably successful and has the means, come forward and complain about Aaron Eckhart, causing her such physical harm out of his anger that she needed an MRI - and clearly there is a video of this because they were filming on set - but yet that never saw the inside of a court and Aaron Eckhart is still being cast in movies?

Please explain how easy it is to take these cases to court, especially in this industry because reality shows us otherwise.

Because it usually never makes it to court.

But when it does go to Court, no one better for your star supporting witness that a comedian known for her crass humor that is offended by the word "sexy," but only if uttered by men. Oh, and also is very offended her bosses granted her wish for more expensive housing allowance.

You keep presenting this case as if it will be decided on one point. You don’t even know of that specific claim will come up at trial.

Trials are decided on the cumulative evidence presented. And then the jury will receive instructions on how the law applies to those facts. You keep cherry picking certain things, usually through an interpretation that favors the outcome you prefer, and assume that’s how it will play out in a court of law.

So many people watching this case don’t even understand depositions and why certain things are addressed while others are not.

The most interesting aspect of this case will be which claims survive to trial and how the motions on limine play out. But until then you simply cannot point to one piece of evidence and pretend it’s going to decide a case. Nor can you point to evidence that likely won’t even make it before a jury.

Not true at all, you are the one acting like the mountains of evidence discrediting Blake and her witnesses won't be heard.

Further, I've actually litigated cases before a jury. I can tell you have not.

And yet you ignore the mountains of evidence in Lively’s favor. I am not saying Justin/Wayfarer won’t be able to put on a defense (and maybe a formative one). But I cannot believe anyone with litigating experience believes they know which evidence will be presented and how it will be presented at this juncture.

But the answer to your question is yes, many. And I have done many more mock juries with professional companies, where we actually get to ask them which evidence was persuasive and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really need to know what the rest of Hollywood thinks of Blake and Ryan.

Even if they have some well-connected people in their corner, like the Damons, I don't see other producers and directors liking their behavior.

Their careers are over.

Keep telling yourself that. You think Ryan Reynolds won't be just fine? Who knows about Blake. Her issue is far more that she's aging out of leading lady roles and doesn't have the acting chops to go much further. It's Boldoni who has zero chance of recovering. You have a rep for creating a toxic sexist set--even if colleagues aren't sure about Blake they will believe Jenny Slate--you're done. No investors will chance that liability.

Baldoni and Wayfair are done. Didn’t they lie on their insurance paperwork? I don’t see how they even get insured moving forward (assuming anyone would work with them after this). They are a walking lawsuit at this point.

OK, but they are still working with actors like Scarjo and winning all kinds of awards and have a bunch of films coming out? Sure seems like at this point they’re still doing OK.

I see zero films due out in 2026 and none actually in production either. Everything else was in the can and pre-dated the lawsuit. Nice try though!

I guess that’s something RR and BL have in common with them then!

everyone in this case sounds horrible and they torched their careers. To act like someone is going to come out on top of this is just silly.

But I truly believe if Blake had just left well enough alone the bad press around her would have died down and she would’ve gone to make another movie. That ship has clearly sailed though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really need to know what the rest of Hollywood thinks of Blake and Ryan.

Even if they have some well-connected people in their corner, like the Damons, I don't see other producers and directors liking their behavior.

Their careers are over.

Keep telling yourself that. You think Ryan Reynolds won't be just fine? Who knows about Blake. Her issue is far more that she's aging out of leading lady roles and doesn't have the acting chops to go much further. It's Boldoni who has zero chance of recovering. You have a rep for creating a toxic sexist set--even if colleagues aren't sure about Blake they will believe Jenny Slate--you're done. No investors will chance that liability.

Baldoni and Wayfair are done. Didn’t they lie on their insurance paperwork? I don’t see how they even get insured moving forward (assuming anyone would work with them after this). They are a walking lawsuit at this point.

Possible. I guess we'll see. Does not exactly suggest the studio is thriving though, does it?

OK, but they are still working with actors like Scarjo and winning all kinds of awards and have a bunch of films coming out? Sure seems like at this point they’re still doing OK.

I see zero films due out in 2026 and none actually in production either. Everything else was in the can and pre-dated the lawsuit. Nice try though!

Looks like Baldoni has a project in post production, seems possible that is released this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really need to know what the rest of Hollywood thinks of Blake and Ryan.

Even if they have some well-connected people in their corner, like the Damons, I don't see other producers and directors liking their behavior.

Their careers are over.

Keep telling yourself that. You think Ryan Reynolds won't be just fine? Who knows about Blake. Her issue is far more that she's aging out of leading lady roles and doesn't have the acting chops to go much further. It's Boldoni who has zero chance of recovering. You have a rep for creating a toxic sexist set--even if colleagues aren't sure about Blake they will believe Jenny Slate--you're done. No investors will chance that liability.

Baldoni and Wayfair are done. Didn’t they lie on their insurance paperwork? I don’t see how they even get insured moving forward (assuming anyone would work with them after this). They are a walking lawsuit at this point.

OK, but they are still working with actors like Scarjo and winning all kinds of awards and have a bunch of films coming out? Sure seems like at this point they’re still doing OK.

I see zero films due out in 2026 and none actually in production either. Everything else was in the can and pre-dated the lawsuit. Nice try though!

Looks like Baldoni has a project in post production, seems possible that is released this year.

Possible. I guess we'll see. Does not exactly suggest the studio is thriving though, does it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the actresses banded together and refused to do any promotion with Boldoni. No way they'd all want professional drama without there being any 'there' there. Their depositions will in all likelihood demonstrate consistency re: the SH claims. It's not just Blake, and not just Jenny.

The deposition excerpts have been released and this is not the case at all. Do you even read the documents? For that matter, follow the arguments being made on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Blake talks about Justin just doesn't match the language of someone fearful of a sexual predator. It just doesn't. Sorry!

Have none of you ever worked in a toxic work environment with a misogynistic boss? It was clearly a toxic work environment. And when you make it toxic / hostile for one particular group of people - be it due to sex, religion, race - then you have a legal problem. The courts are there to decide if the toxicity and hostility amounts to the legal definition required to find racism, sexual harrassment, anti-semitism etc.

But Blake was the boss. Justin was just clowning around apparently.

Wayfarer was the boss and Justin and Jamey were the head representatives of the company on set.

Still haven't read most of the documents. Blake herself says she ran everything.

You do not seem to understand that puffery (JD’s favorite word) does not negate the fact that legally, JB and Jamey were the heads/bosses. And as such, they had certain legal obligations. Not Blake. Wayfarer and those who ran it.

Read up on the effect of being an independent contractor on sexual harassment claims and then get back to us.

I am going to leave that to the judge.

But that still doesn’t make the PGA letter proof that she was in charge in the legal sense. You are trying to make that letter into something it’s not.

Nor does that have to be the case. But her letter makes clear she had a very high degree of agency and controlled and didn’t consider herself beholden to Heath or Baldoni.

I can be a project manager over a large project and still be subject to SH/HWE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really need to know what the rest of Hollywood thinks of Blake and Ryan.

Even if they have some well-connected people in their corner, like the Damons, I don't see other producers and directors liking their behavior.

Their careers are over.

Keep telling yourself that. You think Ryan Reynolds won't be just fine? Who knows about Blake. Her issue is far more that she's aging out of leading lady roles and doesn't have the acting chops to go much further. It's Boldoni who has zero chance of recovering. You have a rep for creating a toxic sexist set--even if colleagues aren't sure about Blake they will believe Jenny Slate--you're done. No investors will chance that liability.

Baldoni and Wayfair are done. Didn’t they lie on their insurance paperwork? I don’t see how they even get insured moving forward (assuming anyone would work with them after this). They are a walking lawsuit at this point.

OK, but they are still working with actors like Scarjo and winning all kinds of awards and have a bunch of films coming out? Sure seems like at this point they’re still doing OK.

I see zero films due out in 2026 and none actually in production either. Everything else was in the can and pre-dated the lawsuit. Nice try though!

Looks like Baldoni has a project in post production, seems possible that is released this year.

Possible. I guess we'll see. Does not exactly suggest the studio is thriving though, does it?

There is no way concerns about liability aren't in issue for insurers now. Even if they're taking a wait and see attitude about the case, there seems to be little if any forward movement on current productions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stepping back and coming at this from a big picture perspective, I think some of you are going to be surprised with how high the bar is for SH in court, and the bar is even higher for the entertainment industry.

Since this case, people have been posting past cases women have lost. one that I recall was the Friends writers room - a woman writer was subjected to a horrific work environment, shown p-rn, was the butt of horribly explicit jokes. Treated horribly. And the case was dismissed on the basis that the writers were writing a show with a lot innuendo and crass humor and so that was going to come up.

Which is insane because friends is a very family friendly show, but that gives you a sense of where the bar is. Now granted friends was a long time ago, but I don’t think we’ve made a lot of progress since then. There are other cases where because it’s a Hollywood set people just don’t take it seriously.

The power of the me too movement was that we didn’t have to wait for the courts. Most men implicated in those first few years like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and many others were not caught up in civil or criminal litigation. The beauty of it was that it was finally a time when women could come together to complain about bad behavior and men were held accountable, reputations were tarnished or ruined, often they were fired (unfortunately often with multi million dollar settlements, but it was a start.) They lost their jobs and their reputation and women weren’t being told they were crazy or being punished for speaking up.

I truly think that’s what Blake‘s team saw here which was why the first strategy was to go to the New York Times . I really think that they wanted to lead with the retaliation campaign and have that be the crux of the story but of course, in order to have retaliation, you have to have an element of SH to hold over Baldoni. I do not think they expected to have a SH case in court, and you can this see in their proceedings. A lot of the SH claims has been defanged. People in this thread are still talking about incidents that are no longer being considered in the court and you will not here about if this goes to trial. A lot of it has turned to workplace hostility and they’re still trying to lean on retaliation.

You need to brush up on the law that governs this case. You are making conclusions based on a misunderstanding of the law.

Then why, in an industry where there’s probably a little sexual harassment on every Hollywood set, does nobody go to court? Why when there’s women like Abigail Breslin who’s reasonably successful and has the means, come forward and complain about Aaron Eckhart, causing her such physical harm out of his anger that she needed an MRI - and clearly there is a video of this because they were filming on set - but yet that never saw the inside of a court and Aaron Eckhart is still being cast in movies?

Please explain how easy it is to take these cases to court, especially in this industry because reality shows us otherwise.

Because it usually never makes it to court.

But when it does go to Court, no one better for your star supporting witness that a comedian known for her crass humor that is offended by the word "sexy," but only if uttered by men. Oh, and also is very offended her bosses granted her wish for more expensive housing allowance.

You keep presenting this case as if it will be decided on one point. You don’t even know of that specific claim will come up at trial.

Trials are decided on the cumulative evidence presented. And then the jury will receive instructions on how the law applies to those facts. You keep cherry picking certain things, usually through an interpretation that favors the outcome you prefer, and assume that’s how it will play out in a court of law.

So many people watching this case don’t even understand depositions and why certain things are addressed while others are not.

The most interesting aspect of this case will be which claims survive to trial and how the motions on limine play out. But until then you simply cannot point to one piece of evidence and pretend it’s going to decide a case. Nor can you point to evidence that likely won’t even make it before a jury.

Not true at all, you are the one acting like the mountains of evidence discrediting Blake and her witnesses won't be heard.

Further, I've actually litigated cases before a jury. I can tell you have not.

And yet you ignore the mountains of evidence in Lively’s favor. I am not saying Justin/Wayfarer won’t be able to put on a defense (and maybe a formative one). But I cannot believe anyone with litigating experience believes they know which evidence will be presented and how it will be presented at this juncture.

But the answer to your question is yes, many. And I have done many more mock juries with professional companies, where we actually get to ask them which evidence was persuasive and why.

There is no such mountain. All you have been able to come up is that she was asked to film a scene topless and Health walked in her trailer when she was partially clothed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the actresses banded together and refused to do any promotion with Boldoni. No way they'd all want professional drama without there being any 'there' there. Their depositions will in all likelihood demonstrate consistency re: the SH claims. It's not just Blake, and not just Jenny.

The deposition excerpts have been released and this is not the case at all. Do you even read the documents? For that matter, follow the arguments being made on this thread?

Respectfully, I don’t think many of us finding the arguments made in this thread persuasive. And I think many of us are reading the same documents and coming to very different conclusions about their content.