Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe Wayfarer's biggest fan still can't spell the company name right. He's going to produce under a name his fan can't even get right? Shows how unknown and irrelevant they are.

I love how you pearl clutchers are like he sexually harassed a woman?!?! He won’t survive in Hollywood! If there is one industry that will not stand for treating women bad it’s Hollywood. I’m sure no white male executives who still run Hollywood ever want to work with this studio again!

Give me a freaking break. Wayfarer has $1 billion backer of course they’re going to continue to pump out movies.

Blake will be the one who suffers from this. Apparently isabel too as she was just starting out and she has gained no more Instagram followers, and has no more movies in the works which is kind of sad that she got caught up in this. Blake won’t do much acting again and somehow we will survive without her movies, and Ryan will probably do fine. I doubt it was worth bringing this lawsuit, but whatever it’s their money.

I agree Hollywood doesn't really care about bad behavior but they need a distributor and this has been a massive headache for SONY. And neither Justin or Jamey are good at their jobs. Some actors aren't going to want to work with them. I think Wayfarer will be able to make movies but nothing big.

Dont forget lawsuits with 4 different insurance companies. But it's all Blake's fault!

Huh? Insurers are always trying to wriggle out of these things. Nothing to do with the validity of Blake’s claims.

They filled out paperwork saying they weren’t aware of any HR related issues after the 17 point list. Their chances of getting covers in the future are slim.

No one cares about insurance coverage litigation.

There is a specific discussion about the viability of Wayfarer moving forward. Or are we only allowed to rant about how Blake and Ryan will never work again?

It has zero to do with viability of the company considering the billionaire backing it. I’d worry more about the financial impact on Lively.

It doesn’t matter. They still need insurance. Actors are not going to sign on to an uninsured studio.

It isn’t hard to get insurance, they’ll just have higher rates. Do you actually work or just post here?

Insuring WF is a good deal. Get high premiums, never have to pay out due to their fraud or incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

I recall that document you mention in 2, it was heavily redacted and not at all meaningful as it focused almost entirely on posts after the counterclaim was filed by Baldoni, which of course is after the NY Times article about retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

On point #3, I do think there is a fair argument for a break in causation. I don't agree that Blake got the rest of the cast to unfollow him because reading through the depos they really do all seem to hate him all on their own. I do think you could argue that the things she was doing with taking over his edit time were reasons for his crisis PR campaign, not just the SH. I think it's probably grey enough for the judge to let it go forward.

Thank you for a pleasant conversation.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t this Patrick man the guy Jeff Bezos pretended to be friends with while he stole his wife? Small world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

On point #3, I do think there is a fair argument for a break in causation. I don't agree that Blake got the rest of the cast to unfollow him because reading through the depos they really do all seem to hate him all on their own. I do think you could argue that the things she was doing with taking over his edit time were reasons for his crisis PR campaign, not just the SH. I think it's probably grey enough for the judge to let it go forward.

Thank you for a pleasant conversation.

Colleen Hoover said Blake told her to unfollow Baldoni in her deposition. If she said it to her, she said it to others. It’s not likely everyone separately got the idea to u follow him at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

On point #3, I do think there is a fair argument for a break in causation. I don't agree that Blake got the rest of the cast to unfollow him because reading through the depos they really do all seem to hate him all on their own. I do think you could argue that the things she was doing with taking over his edit time were reasons for his crisis PR campaign, not just the SH. I think it's probably grey enough for the judge to let it go forward.

Thank you for a pleasant conversation.

Colleen Hoover said Blake told her to unfollow Baldoni in her deposition. If she said it to her, she said it to others. It’s not likely everyone separately got the idea to u follow him at the same time.

Thank you for the correction, I had not read that particular document nor heard that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

On point #3, I do think there is a fair argument for a break in causation. I don't agree that Blake got the rest of the cast to unfollow him because reading through the depos they really do all seem to hate him all on their own. I do think you could argue that the things she was doing with taking over his edit time were reasons for his crisis PR campaign, not just the SH. I think it's probably grey enough for the judge to let it go forward.

Thank you for a pleasant conversation.

Colleen Hoover said Blake told her to unfollow Baldoni in her deposition. If she said it to her, she said it to others. It’s not likely everyone separately got the idea to u follow him at the same time.

The “middle school” poster had it right. Lively and Reynolds targeted Baldoni to thieve the project and any future films from him well before a single one of their alleged triggering events occurred. The text reveals are unbelievably damning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this Patrick man the guy Jeff Bezos pretended to be friends with while he stole his wife? Small world.

Yes, he’s Sánchez’s ex.

Ryan Reynolds is a psycho. Scarlett Johansson and Colin Jost must be on a hella wild group chat today.

[Anonymous]

Destroying and smearing anyone in your path with “weaponized feminism,” your best friend’s army of cyberbully cult members, and your best friend and husband’s Hollywood and media connections.

[Anonymous]

Texts between the two Sony execs during early promotion of the film, Blake took them all out to dinner obviously except for Justin

Alex Sachs texts Tony Black (both from Sony), “dinner was lovely” and “Blake has Brandon tightly wrapped around her finger. Isabel too.”

Lots of scheming.

I’m betting Blake and Ryan and Colleen were going to get the sequel back and then cut a deal with Sony to distribute it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo.

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

On point #3, I do think there is a fair argument for a break in causation. I don't agree that Blake got the rest of the cast to unfollow him because reading through the depos they really do all seem to hate him all on their own. I do think you could argue that the things she was doing with taking over his edit time were reasons for his crisis PR campaign, not just the SH. I think it's probably grey enough for the judge to let it go forward.

Thank you for a pleasant conversation.

Same. Thanks for the constructive conversation. I think some of this gets kicked. I think she gets ruled an IC which gives Liman an easy out on the SH. I believe NAG has said that would undo most if not all of her SH claims (I’m saying if not all only b/c I can’t remember if there’s a nuance I’m forgetting). I think retaliation may go forward as a question of fact if Liman is being really conservative but I just don’t see her winning that one ultimately even if it does. Also I forgot about the unsigned contract, which caps her damages anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Texts between the two Sony execs during early promotion of the film, Blake took them all out to dinner obviously except for Justin

Alex Sachs texts Tony Black (both from Sony), “dinner was lovely” and “Blake has Brandon tightly wrapped around her finger. Isabel too.”

Lots of scheming.

I’m betting Blake and Ryan and Colleen were going to get the sequel back and then cut a deal with Sony to distribute it.

Don’t forget Blake flew those two actors to the book festival on her own dime. She’s far better at manipulation than acting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texts between the two Sony execs during early promotion of the film, Blake took them all out to dinner obviously except for Justin

Alex Sachs texts Tony Black (both from Sony), “dinner was lovely” and “Blake has Brandon tightly wrapped around her finger. Isabel too.”

Lots of scheming.

I’m betting Blake and Ryan and Colleen were going to get the sequel back and then cut a deal with Sony to distribute it.

Don’t forget Blake flew those two actors to the book festival on her own dime. She’s far better at manipulation than acting.

And had sleepovers with Isabel and styled her. And tangled Taylor in front of of her, telling her that Taylor helped cast her.