Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s neat that Hoover wanted a female director but I just did a quick Google search and only 8-16 percent of films are directed by women in any given recent year. So it’s a tall order unfortunately.

Let’s not act as if everyone is lining up to do a Colleen Hoover movie either. They have proven successful, but a lot of people feel it is beneath them. Justin is hardly a household name and Blake has not had a lot of success at the box office previously though she does have a lot of star power.

Frankly, Colleen was lucky anyone was willing to make it, and it was not a big budget film. But if she wanted more control, she could’ve taken more control. She owned the rights to the story and I feel like she just probably sold it to the highest bidder.

As noted above, this is the same person who was willing to do a coloring book off a domestic violence film so I think money is important to her and it’s pretty rich to act like she had these high standards.

Christy Hall wanted to direct the movie. She wrote the script for IEWU and had literally just filmed a movie starring Dakota Johnson and Sean Penn (Daddio) when IEWU went into pre-production. In fact I think a vague promise of letting her direct the movie was part of how they got her to do the script.

Baldoni had also said in at least one interview after acquiring the rights to the books that Wayfarer wanted a female director. I will try to find the interview -- he was asked if he planned to direct it (he may have been doing promo for Clouds in the interview) and he immediately tosses it off that of course not, they wanted a woman because of the subject matter.

So why didn’t she do it? Male politics of Hollywood and men taking over?

Hall is known as a writer has she ever directed anything before?

It’s great the people want female directors, but not every studio is willing to gamble on them. Look at Scarlett Johansson one of the most successful people in the entertainment industry and she just made her debut with an independent film with a small budget aimed at a niche audience.

Female directors are still pretty rare. Steve Sarowitz is ultimately the backer and maybe he didn’t want to gamble on one. Which sucks but not really Justin‘s fault.

And I disagree that Colleen could not have gotten a better deal. There’s tons of novelists who have had movies made who have much more control. They can come on as a producer if they want. what you said makes no sense. I think Colleen’s busy and just wanted to sell to the highest offer and that’s what she did.

She had the rights of course she could’ve had more control. Taking all agency away from Colleen makes no sense.

Colleen was an executive producer in the movie, and yes, many authors get that title in adaptations. It's a vanity title though.

You are incorrect that many writers have more control, unless by "many writers" you actually just mean J.K. Rowling.

This is simply not true. Stephen King and John Grisham and others also have a lot of creative control. Colleen Hoover is big enough that she could’ve done this. Come on. she got lazy and just wanted the money and that’s fine. You’re putting way too much integrity on the same woman who tried to monetize domestic violence via a coloring book. I’m not buying it.

I don’t pretend to be a Hollywood insider but have a friend who is a very successful romcom author with many bestsellers. It took a long time to get an offer to make a movie of one of them, but she definitely had some input.

Exactly. If it’s your first book and you were starting out, of course don’t have much to negotiate with. But Colleen Hoover is a multimillionaire. Her books are very successful and this was not the only one being talked about for an adaptation. She could’ve patiently waited for a better deal.

She seems very money hungry, given the coloring book and the fact that she asked them to make the illegal donation in her name.

How does asking Wayfarer to make a donation in her name make her "money hungry." That money was to go to o a charity.

Hoover grew up working class, I totally get why she'd view money in hand as better than waiting around to see if a more advantageous deal came along. Sometimes the door closes on opportunities like this very quickly. Plus from her perspective, getting one successful adaptation made is her best play. She has tons of books. If one movie succeeds, she'll sell the others for more. Which is what happened -- for all the negative publicity with this movie, the truth is that if made a ton of money and Hoover already has two more adaptations on the works with big name casts. She may also have more power in those movies because now she has proof of concept in Hollywood.but IEWU was her first and the industry didn't yet know if it would sell movie tickets.

OK, but she could’ve held off for a better deal and no one was offering. She made the decision and she needs to be a grown adult and stand up for it.

She wanted an illegal tax write off. She wanted wayfarer to make the donation and her to get the tax credit for it. It is tax fraud.

And this was in 2024 - three other movies are being adapted by big studios at this point. The woman probably has 100 million at this point but keep justifying it. She’s a trash person and she was excited that like the popular girl was talking to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The deposition from the Sony executive about the meeting where Ryan berated Justin is chilling. Highly recommend that people find it and read it.

The Sony executive, Ange, confirmed that Todd Black the other executive said it was the worst meeting he had ever been to. Keep in mind Todd Black is 65 and I believe now retired so that is saying something.

The meeting was a total ambush. They were told they were going to talk about script. No one said that Ryan was going to be there and they were surprised. There were line producers there and they were dismissed. Blake then took out her list and started reading, and Ange said she was shocked as she had not heard any of those complaints before.

She was asked if Ryan acted aggressively or yelled at Justin and confirmed. Yes, his voice was raised.

She described Justin as “frozen.”

She said the meeting went on for five hours with no breaks.

I’m sorry, but that is completely unhinged.

I’m sure Blake defenders will be like he was standing up for his wife or whatever but in no universe is a five hour meeting where you blindside somebody acceptable or an adult way to handle. Justin should’ve had a lawyer or an HR rep available as well if they were bringing up HR issues it’s just not appropriate or professional and sounds insane.

I agree it sounds nuts. Five hours is completely bizarre -- I don't understand what was even said over that length of time.

I don't understand why no one in the room was able to diffuse the situation and say "ok, these concerns have been heard, let's stop and reconvene after people have had a chance to process." Even just to take a break for a few hours I think would have helped. Like the project manager in me just thinks this was an unproductive way to handle this.

But I hold them all responsible. Yes, Ryan sounds unhinged and Luke he wouldn't let up. I've dealt with people like that and it SUCKS. But it also sounds like Ange and Todd Black were fairly useless. Baldoni apparently just curled up into a ball and went into a fugue state. I know people think that is understandable but I actually don't. He's not a little kid. He's a man in his 40s who assigned himself the role of star/director/producer of a $30m movie. I am honestly surprised he couldn't stand up for himself or find a better way to navigate the situation than go catatonic. Of course you feel bad for the person being attacked in that meeting, but also -- Baldoni was the boss. I'm shocked he had nothing more to say for himself and that Jamey had to jump in and basically handle the whole meeting.

It adds to my perception that the movie was a rudderless ship, which does make me more sympathetic to the idea that Blake wasn't trying to "steal" the movie so much as put a hand on the till and straighten it out, even as the way she did it was pretty hamfisted.

These are pretty serious allegations that sounded like were shocking to everyone sexual harassment and some of the things that she was implying are the allegations that put careers at risk. He should’ve been there with a representative from HR. I don’t blame him for freezing.

If he had stood up and met Ryan tone for tone, would that have been the mature way to handle it? Imagine the story that would’ve been then if he had gotten angry or upset or lashed out. Or even tried to defend himself - and how do you even do that if he felt the claims were baseless or taken out of context . I think freezing is actually pretty normal and pretty measured response. He also should’ve had legal representation. I understand this wasn’t a crime scene, but he was really being back to the corner.

Not suggesting he match Ryan's tone -- Ryan was being ridiculous. But saying look, I'm hearing what you are saying but it is a lot and doesn't match my own memory. Let's take a beat and talk through this. To just say nothing at all... maybe this set Ryan off more, or maybe it made him seem more guilty.

I also don't get why this was treated as coming out of nowhere because it honestly seemed like there was enough discussion of problems on set with Baldoni, Heath, and Ange at that point that none of them should have been that surprised that it came up at this meeting, even if the scope was bigger than they expected. They act like they though everything was great and were blindsided, but it's very obvious things were not great based on the texts and emails we've seen in the months leading up to this meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s neat that Hoover wanted a female director but I just did a quick Google search and only 8-16 percent of films are directed by women in any given recent year. So it’s a tall order unfortunately.

Let’s not act as if everyone is lining up to do a Colleen Hoover movie either. They have proven successful, but a lot of people feel it is beneath them. Justin is hardly a household name and Blake has not had a lot of success at the box office previously though she does have a lot of star power.

Frankly, Colleen was lucky anyone was willing to make it, and it was not a big budget film. But if she wanted more control, she could’ve taken more control. She owned the rights to the story and I feel like she just probably sold it to the highest bidder.

As noted above, this is the same person who was willing to do a coloring book off a domestic violence film so I think money is important to her and it’s pretty rich to act like she had these high standards.

Christy Hall wanted to direct the movie. She wrote the script for IEWU and had literally just filmed a movie starring Dakota Johnson and Sean Penn (Daddio) when IEWU went into pre-production. In fact I think a vague promise of letting her direct the movie was part of how they got her to do the script.

Baldoni had also said in at least one interview after acquiring the rights to the books that Wayfarer wanted a female director. I will try to find the interview -- he was asked if he planned to direct it (he may have been doing promo for Clouds in the interview) and he immediately tosses it off that of course not, they wanted a woman because of the subject matter.

So why didn’t she do it? Male politics of Hollywood and men taking over?

Hall is known as a writer has she ever directed anything before?

It’s great the people want female directors, but not every studio is willing to gamble on them. Look at Scarlett Johansson one of the most successful people in the entertainment industry and she just made her debut with an independent film with a small budget aimed at a niche audience.

Female directors are still pretty rare. Steve Sarowitz is ultimately the backer and maybe he didn’t want to gamble on one. Which sucks but not really Justin‘s fault.

And I disagree that Colleen could not have gotten a better deal. There’s tons of novelists who have had movies made who have much more control. They can come on as a producer if they want. what you said makes no sense. I think Colleen’s busy and just wanted to sell to the highest offer and that’s what she did.

She had the rights of course she could’ve had more control. Taking all agency away from Colleen makes no sense.

Colleen was an executive producer in the movie, and yes, many authors get that title in adaptations. It's a vanity title though.

You are incorrect that many writers have more control, unless by "many writers" you actually just mean J.K. Rowling.

This is simply not true. Stephen King and John Grisham and others also have a lot of creative control. Colleen Hoover is big enough that she could’ve done this. Come on. she got lazy and just wanted the money and that’s fine. You’re putting way too much integrity on the same woman who tried to monetize domestic violence via a coloring book. I’m not buying it.

I don’t pretend to be a Hollywood insider but have a friend who is a very successful romcom author with many bestsellers. It took a long time to get an offer to make a movie of one of them, but she definitely had some input.

Exactly. If it’s your first book and you were starting out, of course don’t have much to negotiate with. But Colleen Hoover is a multimillionaire. Her books are very successful and this was not the only one being talked about for an adaptation. She could’ve patiently waited for a better deal.

She seems very money hungry, given the coloring book and the fact that she asked them to make the illegal donation in her name.

How does asking Wayfarer to make a donation in her name make her "money hungry." That money was to go to o a charity.

Hoover grew up working class, I totally get why she'd view money in hand as better than waiting around to see if a more advantageous deal came along. Sometimes the door closes on opportunities like this very quickly. Plus from her perspective, getting one successful adaptation made is her best play. She has tons of books. If one movie succeeds, she'll sell the others for more. Which is what happened -- for all the negative publicity with this movie, the truth is that if made a ton of money and Hoover already has two more adaptations on the works with big name casts. She may also have more power in those movies because now she has proof of concept in Hollywood.but IEWU was her first and the industry didn't yet know if it would sell movie tickets.

OK, but she could’ve held off for a better deal and no one was offering. She made the decision and she needs to be a grown adult and stand up for it.

She wanted an illegal tax write off. She wanted wayfarer to make the donation and her to get the tax credit for it. It is tax fraud.

And this was in 2024 - three other movies are being adapted by big studios at this point. The woman probably has 100 million at this point but keep justifying it. She’s a trash person and she was excited that like the popular girl was talking to her.

Take responsibility for what? The movie? It wasn't her movie. She sold the rights. I don't get what you think she should have done other than negotiate a better deal for herself. Sure, I guess, but that's not what the litigation is over. I don't see why it matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The deposition from the Sony executive about the meeting where Ryan berated Justin is chilling. Highly recommend that people find it and read it.

The Sony executive, Ange, confirmed that Todd Black the other executive said it was the worst meeting he had ever been to. Keep in mind Todd Black is 65 and I believe now retired so that is saying something.

The meeting was a total ambush. They were told they were going to talk about script. No one said that Ryan was going to be there and they were surprised. There were line producers there and they were dismissed. Blake then took out her list and started reading, and Ange said she was shocked as she had not heard any of those complaints before.

She was asked if Ryan acted aggressively or yelled at Justin and confirmed. Yes, his voice was raised.

She described Justin as “frozen.”

She said the meeting went on for five hours with no breaks.

I’m sorry, but that is completely unhinged.

I’m sure Blake defenders will be like he was standing up for his wife or whatever but in no universe is a five hour meeting where you blindside somebody acceptable or an adult way to handle. Justin should’ve had a lawyer or an HR rep available as well if they were bringing up HR issues it’s just not appropriate or professional and sounds insane.

I agree it sounds nuts. Five hours is completely bizarre -- I don't understand what was even said over that length of time.

I don't understand why no one in the room was able to diffuse the situation and say "ok, these concerns have been heard, let's stop and reconvene after people have had a chance to process." Even just to take a break for a few hours I think would have helped. Like the project manager in me just thinks this was an unproductive way to handle this.

But I hold them all responsible. Yes, Ryan sounds unhinged and Luke he wouldn't let up. I've dealt with people like that and it SUCKS. But it also sounds like Ange and Todd Black were fairly useless. Baldoni apparently just curled up into a ball and went into a fugue state. I know people think that is understandable but I actually don't. He's not a little kid. He's a man in his 40s who assigned himself the role of star/director/producer of a $30m movie. I am honestly surprised he couldn't stand up for himself or find a better way to navigate the situation than go catatonic. Of course you feel bad for the person being attacked in that meeting, but also -- Baldoni was the boss. I'm shocked he had nothing more to say for himself and that Jamey had to jump in and basically handle the whole meeting.

It adds to my perception that the movie was a rudderless ship, which does make me more sympathetic to the idea that Blake wasn't trying to "steal" the movie so much as put a hand on the till and straighten it out, even as the way she did it was pretty hamfisted.

These are pretty serious allegations that sounded like were shocking to everyone sexual harassment and some of the things that she was implying are the allegations that put careers at risk. He should’ve been there with a representative from HR. I don’t blame him for freezing.

If he had stood up and met Ryan tone for tone, would that have been the mature way to handle it? Imagine the story that would’ve been then if he had gotten angry or upset or lashed out. Or even tried to defend himself - and how do you even do that if he felt the claims were baseless or taken out of context . I think freezing is actually pretty normal and pretty measured response. He also should’ve had legal representation. I understand this wasn’t a crime scene, but he was really being back to the corner.

Not suggesting he match Ryan's tone -- Ryan was being ridiculous. But saying look, I'm hearing what you are saying but it is a lot and doesn't match my own memory. Let's take a beat and talk through this. To just say nothing at all... maybe this set Ryan off more, or maybe it made him seem more guilty.

I also don't get why this was treated as coming out of nowhere because it honestly seemed like there was enough discussion of problems on set with Baldoni, Heath, and Ange at that point that none of them should have been that surprised that it came up at this meeting, even if the scope was bigger than they expected. They act like they though everything was great and were blindsided, but it's very obvious things were not great based on the texts and emails we've seen in the months leading up to this meeting.

To be fair, we don’t know. There’s one line in the deposition that said he froze. I don’t know that that means he didn’t say anything for five hours. We are speculating a lot with information that we don’t know.

And it was Ange who she said they were blindsided. So I’m willing to take her word for it and you can read the text Blake sent to Justin about this meeting. It was very cordial. I hope he had a nice holidays, etc. and could he come to the penthouse. And they were told they were going to be talking about script changes and they were weren’t told that Ryan was going to be there.

So maybe he wasn’t shocked to hear all the complaints but it sounded like no one was prepared to have an HR meeting. I also think it’s so unprofessional that she kept having meetings in her penthouse. I’m not sure why that was allowed, but I guess if she had all the power and then they just did that.

And I’m sure Justin will be blamed for allowing that to happen or not pushing back on that. But it simply seems like by that point everyone was giving Blake a lot of power. We keep crediting Justin for having total accountability for this movie, but Sony had a say and they let Blake get pretty far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Livetweet: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925

Sounds like a rough start for WP, unless Liman is going to be like this with both sides:

All rise!
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: This is a case about making a movie, one with highly charged romantic and sexual themes. After signing on, an intimacy coordinator was made available. The book called for sexy scenes

Judge: That doesn't mean you agree to harassment.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: There is caselaw about discussion of oral sex in a writer's room - in a typical office setting, it's inappropriate. But Mr. Baldoni stands accused of commenting on her wardrobe

Judge Liman: Was he allowed, while dancing, to touch her wherever?
Baldoni's Bach: That's not what the facts show. There's no evidence that anyone was taking aim at Blake Livery because she was a woman. It was about making a film with a certain sexual aesthetic

Here's the rest of the tweets from Baldoni's opener:

Baldoni's Bach: A petty or trivial slight does not constitute a hostile environment. They're bringing in the small potatoes.
Judge Liman: What if the men on the set were commenting, You look hot, only to the women?
Baldoni's Bach: It was resolved

Judge Liman: What is the significance of the apology?
Baldoni's Bach: That the office took every complaint seriously. See Liebowitz v. NY Transit Authority, the 2d Circuit decision. Here, they don't have an adverse act, only a so-called smear campaign

Baldoni's Bach: All they have in Mr. Baldoni promoting himself, and advocating for victims of domestic violence - that is not against Ms. Lively. At most, there are other people introducing content onto the Internet, then some thumbs-ups. It's PR

Judge Liman: How do you distinguish amplifying negative content from generating it, as retaliation?
Baldoni's Bach: If an associate in my office went and talked to a court without my permission and I can't respond, I don't control them. Here, Ms. Lively had control

Baldoni's Bach: If you're employee, Social Security is withheld, you get medical insurance - that's not the case here, under Title 7
Judge Liman: That's not strictly true. You can be an employee without a W2.
Baldoni's Bach: She claims millions in damages

Baldoni's lawyer Alexandra Shapiro: On defamation, Ms Lively's claims are based entirely on counsel's statements - her claims fail. Mr. Freedman's statement reflected his opinions.
Judge Liman: But he called it a desperate attempt, to ruin others' lives

Judge Liman: This is like Carroll versus Trump.
Baldoni's Shapiro: A lawyer, in essentially a tabloid dispute, can make these arguments. A lot of the evidence known to Mr. Freedman at the time are easily interpreted as Mr. Freedman did, on her motivation

Judge Liman: That suggests a dispute of fact [and therefore no summary judgment]
Baldoni's Shapiro: The Trump case was different, the President made clearly factual statements, I never met that woman, when there were photos showing that was false

Baldoni's Shapiro: What Ms. Lively is trying to do here is say she can leak a complaint before it is filed to the New York Times, and his lawyer is not allowed to respond until he files his answer 20 days later
Judge Liman: He could say, these allegations are wrong

Judge Liman: But there are limits, when he gets into motive
Baldoni's Shapiro: These were statements of opinion. Carroll versus Trump is different, it was about facts, not opinion. Mr. Freedman was making a general denial. But know lawyers are not objective

Baldoni's Shapiro: Ms Lively kept refusing to sign the contract-
Judge Liman: What about the open items, on stills and confidentiality and the like?
Baldoni's Shapiro: There was back and forth about those issues.

Baldoni's 3d lawyer today Ellyn S. Garofalo: Here are cases: the O'Connor case, and two more recent ones from 2025: Hill v Workday describes what must be shown to establish the situs of the contract and of the wrongful conduct. Compare that case

Baldoni's Garofalo: To allege retaliation, you have to have specific facts - what decisions were made, and where. Ms Lively says some may have occurred in California, without facts. A Judge Furman case-
Judge Liman: I'm aware of that.

Judge Liman: What work does "made and performed" in the contract do?
Baldoni's Garofalo: I'm not entire sure. But under a straight extraterritoriality analysis, the outcome is the same. On sanctions, it is plaintiff's burden to show the elements. They haven't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The deposition from the Sony executive about the meeting where Ryan berated Justin is chilling. Highly recommend that people find it and read it.

The Sony executive, Ange, confirmed that Todd Black the other executive said it was the worst meeting he had ever been to. Keep in mind Todd Black is 65 and I believe now retired so that is saying something.

The meeting was a total ambush. They were told they were going to talk about script. No one said that Ryan was going to be there and they were surprised. There were line producers there and they were dismissed. Blake then took out her list and started reading, and Ange said she was shocked as she had not heard any of those complaints before.

She was asked if Ryan acted aggressively or yelled at Justin and confirmed. Yes, his voice was raised.

She described Justin as “frozen.”

She said the meeting went on for five hours with no breaks.

I’m sorry, but that is completely unhinged.

I’m sure Blake defenders will be like he was standing up for his wife or whatever but in no universe is a five hour meeting where you blindside somebody acceptable or an adult way to handle. Justin should’ve had a lawyer or an HR rep available as well if they were bringing up HR issues it’s just not appropriate or professional and sounds insane.

I agree it sounds nuts. Five hours is completely bizarre -- I don't understand what was even said over that length of time.

I don't understand why no one in the room was able to diffuse the situation and say "ok, these concerns have been heard, let's stop and reconvene after people have had a chance to process." Even just to take a break for a few hours I think would have helped. Like the project manager in me just thinks this was an unproductive way to handle this.

But I hold them all responsible. Yes, Ryan sounds unhinged and Luke he wouldn't let up. I've dealt with people like that and it SUCKS. But it also sounds like Ange and Todd Black were fairly useless. Baldoni apparently just curled up into a ball and went into a fugue state. I know people think that is understandable but I actually don't. He's not a little kid. He's a man in his 40s who assigned himself the role of star/director/producer of a $30m movie. I am honestly surprised he couldn't stand up for himself or find a better way to navigate the situation than go catatonic. Of course you feel bad for the person being attacked in that meeting, but also -- Baldoni was the boss. I'm shocked he had nothing more to say for himself and that Jamey had to jump in and basically handle the whole meeting.

It adds to my perception that the movie was a rudderless ship, which does make me more sympathetic to the idea that Blake wasn't trying to "steal" the movie so much as put a hand on the till and straighten it out, even as the way she did it was pretty hamfisted.

These are pretty serious allegations that sounded like were shocking to everyone sexual harassment and some of the things that she was implying are the allegations that put careers at risk. He should’ve been there with a representative from HR. I don’t blame him for freezing.

If he had stood up and met Ryan tone for tone, would that have been the mature way to handle it? Imagine the story that would’ve been then if he had gotten angry or upset or lashed out. Or even tried to defend himself - and how do you even do that if he felt the claims were baseless or taken out of context . I think freezing is actually pretty normal and pretty measured response. He also should’ve had legal representation. I understand this wasn’t a crime scene, but he was really being back to the corner.

Not suggesting he match Ryan's tone -- Ryan was being ridiculous. But saying look, I'm hearing what you are saying but it is a lot and doesn't match my own memory. Let's take a beat and talk through this. To just say nothing at all... maybe this set Ryan off more, or maybe it made him seem more guilty.

I also don't get why this was treated as coming out of nowhere because it honestly seemed like there was enough discussion of problems on set with Baldoni, Heath, and Ange at that point that none of them should have been that surprised that it came up at this meeting, even if the scope was bigger than they expected. They act like they though everything was great and were blindsided, but it's very obvious things were not great based on the texts and emails we've seen in the months leading up to this meeting.

To be fair, we don’t know. There’s one line in the deposition that said he froze. I don’t know that that means he didn’t say anything for five hours. We are speculating a lot with information that we don’t know.

And it was Ange who she said they were blindsided. So I’m willing to take her word for it and you can read the text Blake sent to Justin about this meeting. It was very cordial. I hope he had a nice holidays, etc. and could he come to the penthouse. And they were told they were going to be talking about script changes and they were weren’t told that Ryan was going to be there.

So maybe he wasn’t shocked to hear all the complaints but it sounded like no one was prepared to have an HR meeting. I also think it’s so unprofessional that she kept having meetings in her penthouse. I’m not sure why that was allowed, but I guess if she had all the power and then they just did that.

And I’m sure Justin will be blamed for allowing that to happen or not pushing back on that. But it simply seems like by that point everyone was giving Blake a lot of power. We keep crediting Justin for having total accountability for this movie, but Sony had a say and they let Blake get pretty far.

No, read Heath's depo -- he speaks at length about this meeting. He also says Justin froze and just could not speak. Heath says he wound up handling the meeting (yes the five hour meeting) because Justin just could not. Heath even talks about Justin becoming like a child, just unable to respond. I believe Justin also talks about this in his depo. We have way more than the one line in Ange's depo.

I absolutely think Sony fumbled the ball on this. I also think Todd Black and Ange were playing both sides all the time, and also that they were trying to "stay out if it" well past the point when that made any sense. They should have intervened much sooner. Like well before this January meeting. They knew the production was a mess.

[Anonymous]

Taylor, Ryan and Blake are evil people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Livetweet: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925

Sounds like a rough start for WP, unless Liman is going to be like this with both sides:

All rise!
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: This is a case about making a movie, one with highly charged romantic and sexual themes. After signing on, an intimacy coordinator was made available. The book called for sexy scenes

Judge: That doesn't mean you agree to harassment.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: There is caselaw about discussion of oral sex in a writer's room - in a typical office setting, it's inappropriate. But Mr. Baldoni stands accused of commenting on her wardrobe

Judge Liman: Was he allowed, while dancing, to touch her wherever?
Baldoni's Bach: That's not what the facts show. There's no evidence that anyone was taking aim at Blake Livery because she was a woman. It was about making a film with a certain sexual aesthetic

Here's the rest of the tweets from Baldoni's opener:

Baldoni's Bach: A petty or trivial slight does not constitute a hostile environment. They're bringing in the small potatoes.
Judge Liman: What if the men on the set were commenting, You look hot, only to the women?
Baldoni's Bach: It was resolved

Judge Liman: What is the significance of the apology?
Baldoni's Bach: That the office took every complaint seriously. See Liebowitz v. NY Transit Authority, the 2d Circuit decision. Here, they don't have an adverse act, only a so-called smear campaign

Baldoni's Bach: All they have in Mr. Baldoni promoting himself, and advocating for victims of domestic violence - that is not against Ms. Lively. At most, there are other people introducing content onto the Internet, then some thumbs-ups. It's PR

Judge Liman: How do you distinguish amplifying negative content from generating it, as retaliation?
Baldoni's Bach: If an associate in my office went and talked to a court without my permission and I can't respond, I don't control them. Here, Ms. Lively had control

Baldoni's Bach: If you're employee, Social Security is withheld, you get medical insurance - that's not the case here, under Title 7
Judge Liman: That's not strictly true. You can be an employee without a W2.
Baldoni's Bach: She claims millions in damages

Baldoni's lawyer Alexandra Shapiro: On defamation, Ms Lively's claims are based entirely on counsel's statements - her claims fail. Mr. Freedman's statement reflected his opinions.
Judge Liman: But he called it a desperate attempt, to ruin others' lives

Judge Liman: This is like Carroll versus Trump.
Baldoni's Shapiro: A lawyer, in essentially a tabloid dispute, can make these arguments. A lot of the evidence known to Mr. Freedman at the time are easily interpreted as Mr. Freedman did, on her motivation

Judge Liman: That suggests a dispute of fact [and therefore no summary judgment]
Baldoni's Shapiro: The Trump case was different, the President made clearly factual statements, I never met that woman, when there were photos showing that was false

Baldoni's Shapiro: What Ms. Lively is trying to do here is say she can leak a complaint before it is filed to the New York Times, and his lawyer is not allowed to respond until he files his answer 20 days later
Judge Liman: He could say, these allegations are wrong

Judge Liman: But there are limits, when he gets into motive
Baldoni's Shapiro: These were statements of opinion. Carroll versus Trump is different, it was about facts, not opinion. Mr. Freedman was making a general denial. But know lawyers are not objective

Baldoni's Shapiro: Ms Lively kept refusing to sign the contract-
Judge Liman: What about the open items, on stills and confidentiality and the like?
Baldoni's Shapiro: There was back and forth about those issues.

Baldoni's 3d lawyer today Ellyn S. Garofalo: Here are cases: the O'Connor case, and two more recent ones from 2025: Hill v Workday describes what must be shown to establish the situs of the contract and of the wrongful conduct. Compare that case

Baldoni's Garofalo: To allege retaliation, you have to have specific facts - what decisions were made, and where. Ms Lively says some may have occurred in California, without facts. A Judge Furman case-
Judge Liman: I'm aware of that.

Judge Liman: What work does "made and performed" in the contract do?
Baldoni's Garofalo: I'm not entire sure. But under a straight extraterritoriality analysis, the outcome is the same. On sanctions, it is plaintiff's burden to show the elements. They haven't

Lively's attorneys up:
Judge: I'll hear from counsel for Lively.
Lively's lawyer: They say Ms Lively was not targeted on the basis of her gender-
Judge Liman: Don't your Title 7 claims cover it all?
Lively's lawyer: We are seeking damages beyond Title 7. She admit the facts are disputed

Lively's lawyer (seems to be Kristin Bender) - He came into her trailer and glanced at her, she says. He calls it trivial. Ms. Lively and veteran make up and hair specialists say they said No No No - her breasts were exposed and Mr. Heath came in

Judge Liman: Can you distinguish Mr. Heath from Mr. Baldoni?
Lively's lawyer: Both are attributable to Wayfarer.
Judge Liman: Your point on kissed and nuzzled, what is your limiting principle? Can a director improvise?
Lively's lawyer: Only with consent

Judge Liman: Could a director direct the female and male lead to touch each other in a different way than in the script?
Lively's lawyer: Not without consent. There are intimacy coordinators, nudity riders.
Judge Liman: Are you saying they are required by statute?

Lively's lawyer: There must be consent to touch.
Judge Liman: What is the limit? In a dance scene, saying to put hand in a different part of the back - might be OK. Where do you draw the line?
Lively's lawyer: There is a subjective standard: She did not consent

Lively's lawyer: This was a dance sequence. He leans in and kisses her, nuzzles her - she leans away, you can see the look on her face in the video - she is clearly having her boundaries cross. She says, Let's talk

Lively's lawyer: The only way to make sure it is acceptable is to get consent.
Judge Liman: Are you saying if he suggests more graphic scenes, it is harassment?
Lively's lawyer: She signed on to a particular script. That was her expectation. Mr. Baldoni changed it

Lively's lawyer: The author of the book said she did not think it should be hot and sexy. But Mr. Baldoni added in to crawl toward him for oral sex, and climaxing together
Judge Liman: You have brought up other women
Lively's lawyer: It is MeToo evidence

Lively's lawyer: There was Jenny Slate, and Isabela Ferrer. That's Liebowitz case was different, she was not harassed herself. That is not the case we have here. I will move on to retaliation. The defendants take too narrow a view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The deposition from the Sony executive about the meeting where Ryan berated Justin is chilling. Highly recommend that people find it and read it.

The Sony executive, Ange, confirmed that Todd Black the other executive said it was the worst meeting he had ever been to. Keep in mind Todd Black is 65 and I believe now retired so that is saying something.

The meeting was a total ambush. They were told they were going to talk about script. No one said that Ryan was going to be there and they were surprised. There were line producers there and they were dismissed. Blake then took out her list and started reading, and Ange said she was shocked as she had not heard any of those complaints before.

She was asked if Ryan acted aggressively or yelled at Justin and confirmed. Yes, his voice was raised.

She described Justin as “frozen.”

She said the meeting went on for five hours with no breaks.

I’m sorry, but that is completely unhinged.

I’m sure Blake defenders will be like he was standing up for his wife or whatever but in no universe is a five hour meeting where you blindside somebody acceptable or an adult way to handle. Justin should’ve had a lawyer or an HR rep available as well if they were bringing up HR issues it’s just not appropriate or professional and sounds insane.

I agree it sounds nuts. Five hours is completely bizarre -- I don't understand what was even said over that length of time.

I don't understand why no one in the room was able to diffuse the situation and say "ok, these concerns have been heard, let's stop and reconvene after people have had a chance to process." Even just to take a break for a few hours I think would have helped. Like the project manager in me just thinks this was an unproductive way to handle this.

But I hold them all responsible. Yes, Ryan sounds unhinged and Luke he wouldn't let up. I've dealt with people like that and it SUCKS. But it also sounds like Ange and Todd Black were fairly useless. Baldoni apparently just curled up into a ball and went into a fugue state. I know people think that is understandable but I actually don't. He's not a little kid. He's a man in his 40s who assigned himself the role of star/director/producer of a $30m movie. I am honestly surprised he couldn't stand up for himself or find a better way to navigate the situation than go catatonic. Of course you feel bad for the person being attacked in that meeting, but also -- Baldoni was the boss. I'm shocked he had nothing more to say for himself and that Jamey had to jump in and basically handle the whole meeting.

It adds to my perception that the movie was a rudderless ship, which does make me more sympathetic to the idea that Blake wasn't trying to "steal" the movie so much as put a hand on the till and straighten it out, even as the way she did it was pretty hamfisted.

These are pretty serious allegations that sounded like were shocking to everyone sexual harassment and some of the things that she was implying are the allegations that put careers at risk. He should’ve been there with a representative from HR. I don’t blame him for freezing.

If he had stood up and met Ryan tone for tone, would that have been the mature way to handle it? Imagine the story that would’ve been then if he had gotten angry or upset or lashed out. Or even tried to defend himself - and how do you even do that if he felt the claims were baseless or taken out of context . I think freezing is actually pretty normal and pretty measured response. He also should’ve had legal representation. I understand this wasn’t a crime scene, but he was really being back to the corner.

Not suggesting he match Ryan's tone -- Ryan was being ridiculous. But saying look, I'm hearing what you are saying but it is a lot and doesn't match my own memory. Let's take a beat and talk through this. To just say nothing at all... maybe this set Ryan off more, or maybe it made him seem more guilty.

I also don't get why this was treated as coming out of nowhere because it honestly seemed like there was enough discussion of problems on set with Baldoni, Heath, and Ange at that point that none of them should have been that surprised that it came up at this meeting, even if the scope was bigger than they expected. They act like they though everything was great and were blindsided, but it's very obvious things were not great based on the texts and emails we've seen in the months leading up to this meeting.

To be fair, we don’t know. There’s one line in the deposition that said he froze. I don’t know that that means he didn’t say anything for five hours. We are speculating a lot with information that we don’t know.

And it was Ange who she said they were blindsided. So I’m willing to take her word for it and you can read the text Blake sent to Justin about this meeting. It was very cordial. I hope he had a nice holidays, etc. and could he come to the penthouse. And they were told they were going to be talking about script changes and they were weren’t told that Ryan was going to be there.

So maybe he wasn’t shocked to hear all the complaints but it sounded like no one was prepared to have an HR meeting. I also think it’s so unprofessional that she kept having meetings in her penthouse. I’m not sure why that was allowed, but I guess if she had all the power and then they just did that.

And I’m sure Justin will be blamed for allowing that to happen or not pushing back on that. But it simply seems like by that point everyone was giving Blake a lot of power. We keep crediting Justin for having total accountability for this movie, but Sony had a say and they let Blake get pretty far.

No, read Heath's depo -- he speaks at length about this meeting. He also says Justin froze and just could not speak. Heath says he wound up handling the meeting (yes the five hour meeting) because Justin just could not. Heath even talks about Justin becoming like a child, just unable to respond. I believe Justin also talks about this in his depo. We have way more than the one line in Ange's depo.

I absolutely think Sony fumbled the ball on this. I also think Todd Black and Ange were playing both sides all the time, and also that they were trying to "stay out if it" well past the point when that made any sense. They should have intervened much sooner. Like well before this January meeting. They knew the production was a mess.

Oh, I didn’t realize there was more about the meeting in Jameys deposition. I do still sympathize with Justin though. It sounds like a really tough meeting and I would not want to go up against Ryan and his power players. But yes he should have been more professional.

Totally agree on Sony. They were trying to play both sides. People blame us for everything but certainly a lot of power in this movie and he was getting pushed back to agree with her. I also think in Justin’s mind and didn’t realize what was happening until it was too late the morning he gave Blake the more she wanted. I think he thought he could make her happy by keeping her busy with a few things like wardrobe and things, but that was just not the case. Ryan’s involvement and the meetings in the penthouse on should have been a red flag for sure.

I’ve been in workforce for a while and I’ve never once had a boss or CEO over to my house for a meeting. But I’ve been to plenty of bosses houses for parties and things - and meeting during COVID- that’s always the way it should be. The higher up hosts the meeting. But in this case, he just kept coming over to Blake‘s penthouse? It’s upside down from the start.

Sony made some good money from this, but I’m sure they have some regrets. For one the sequels not going to be made. Two I don’t think it’s great that the world knows that Ryan Reynolds think your executives are “textbook ineffectual elderly people.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Livetweet: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925

Sounds like a rough start for WP, unless Liman is going to be like this with both sides:

All rise!
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: This is a case about making a movie, one with highly charged romantic and sexual themes. After signing on, an intimacy coordinator was made available. The book called for sexy scenes

Judge: That doesn't mean you agree to harassment.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: There is caselaw about discussion of oral sex in a writer's room - in a typical office setting, it's inappropriate. But Mr. Baldoni stands accused of commenting on her wardrobe

Judge Liman: Was he allowed, while dancing, to touch her wherever?
Baldoni's Bach: That's not what the facts show. There's no evidence that anyone was taking aim at Blake Livery because she was a woman. It was about making a film with a certain sexual aesthetic

Here's the rest of the tweets from Baldoni's opener:

Baldoni's Bach: A petty or trivial slight does not constitute a hostile environment. They're bringing in the small potatoes.
Judge Liman: What if the men on the set were commenting, You look hot, only to the women?
Baldoni's Bach: It was resolved

Judge Liman: What is the significance of the apology?
Baldoni's Bach: That the office took every complaint seriously. See Liebowitz v. NY Transit Authority, the 2d Circuit decision. Here, they don't have an adverse act, only a so-called smear campaign

Baldoni's Bach: All they have in Mr. Baldoni promoting himself, and advocating for victims of domestic violence - that is not against Ms. Lively. At most, there are other people introducing content onto the Internet, then some thumbs-ups. It's PR

Judge Liman: How do you distinguish amplifying negative content from generating it, as retaliation?
Baldoni's Bach: If an associate in my office went and talked to a court without my permission and I can't respond, I don't control them. Here, Ms. Lively had control

Baldoni's Bach: If you're employee, Social Security is withheld, you get medical insurance - that's not the case here, under Title 7
Judge Liman: That's not strictly true. You can be an employee without a W2.
Baldoni's Bach: She claims millions in damages

Baldoni's lawyer Alexandra Shapiro: On defamation, Ms Lively's claims are based entirely on counsel's statements - her claims fail. Mr. Freedman's statement reflected his opinions.
Judge Liman: But he called it a desperate attempt, to ruin others' lives

Judge Liman: This is like Carroll versus Trump.
Baldoni's Shapiro: A lawyer, in essentially a tabloid dispute, can make these arguments. A lot of the evidence known to Mr. Freedman at the time are easily interpreted as Mr. Freedman did, on her motivation

Judge Liman: That suggests a dispute of fact [and therefore no summary judgment]
Baldoni's Shapiro: The Trump case was different, the President made clearly factual statements, I never met that woman, when there were photos showing that was false

Baldoni's Shapiro: What Ms. Lively is trying to do here is say she can leak a complaint before it is filed to the New York Times, and his lawyer is not allowed to respond until he files his answer 20 days later
Judge Liman: He could say, these allegations are wrong

Judge Liman: But there are limits, when he gets into motive
Baldoni's Shapiro: These were statements of opinion. Carroll versus Trump is different, it was about facts, not opinion. Mr. Freedman was making a general denial. But know lawyers are not objective

Baldoni's Shapiro: Ms Lively kept refusing to sign the contract-
Judge Liman: What about the open items, on stills and confidentiality and the like?
Baldoni's Shapiro: There was back and forth about those issues.

Baldoni's 3d lawyer today Ellyn S. Garofalo: Here are cases: the O'Connor case, and two more recent ones from 2025: Hill v Workday describes what must be shown to establish the situs of the contract and of the wrongful conduct. Compare that case

Baldoni's Garofalo: To allege retaliation, you have to have specific facts - what decisions were made, and where. Ms Lively says some may have occurred in California, without facts. A Judge Furman case-
Judge Liman: I'm aware of that.

Judge Liman: What work does "made and performed" in the contract do?
Baldoni's Garofalo: I'm not entire sure. But under a straight extraterritoriality analysis, the outcome is the same. On sanctions, it is plaintiff's burden to show the elements. They haven't

Lively's attorneys up:
Judge: I'll hear from counsel for Lively.
Lively's lawyer: They say Ms Lively was not targeted on the basis of her gender-
Judge Liman: Don't your Title 7 claims cover it all?
Lively's lawyer: We are seeking damages beyond Title 7. She admit the facts are disputed

Lively's lawyer (seems to be Kristin Bender) - He came into her trailer and glanced at her, she says. He calls it trivial. Ms. Lively and veteran make up and hair specialists say they said No No No - her breasts were exposed and Mr. Heath came in

Judge Liman: Can you distinguish Mr. Heath from Mr. Baldoni?
Lively's lawyer: Both are attributable to Wayfarer.
Judge Liman: Your point on kissed and nuzzled, what is your limiting principle? Can a director improvise?
Lively's lawyer: Only with consent

Judge Liman: Could a director direct the female and male lead to touch each other in a different way than in the script?
Lively's lawyer: Not without consent. There are intimacy coordinators, nudity riders.
Judge Liman: Are you saying they are required by statute?

Lively's lawyer: There must be consent to touch.
Judge Liman: What is the limit? In a dance scene, saying to put hand in a different part of the back - might be OK. Where do you draw the line?
Lively's lawyer: There is a subjective standard: She did not consent

Lively's lawyer: This was a dance sequence. He leans in and kisses her, nuzzles her - she leans away, you can see the look on her face in the video - she is clearly having her boundaries cross. She says, Let's talk

Lively's lawyer: The only way to make sure it is acceptable is to get consent.
Judge Liman: Are you saying if he suggests more graphic scenes, it is harassment?
Lively's lawyer: She signed on to a particular script. That was her expectation. Mr. Baldoni changed it

Lively's lawyer: The author of the book said she did not think it should be hot and sexy. But Mr. Baldoni added in to crawl toward him for oral sex, and climaxing together
Judge Liman: You have brought up other women
Lively's lawyer: It is MeToo evidence

Lively's lawyer: There was Jenny Slate, and Isabela Ferrer. That's Liebowitz case was different, she was not harassed herself. That is not the case we have here. I will move on to retaliation. The defendants take too narrow a view

Lively's lawyer: When she complained, Mr. Baldoni became huffy. So she negotiated a protection document, about retaliation.
Judge Liman: That could be a contract claim.
Lively's lawyer: It covered changes in attitude, sarcasm, as an adverse employment action

Lively's lawyer: Ms. Hoover was so disturbed how they talked about Ms. Lively that she never spoke with them again.
Judge Liman: So the retaliation was not very effective
Lively's lawyer: You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. It went digital

Lively's lawyer: She said she did not want pictures with him. That was protected conduct - it includes any kind of opposition, an informal protest.
Judge Liman: Is accusing a person protected? Can a person not respond?
Lively's lawyer: Cannot besmirch

Break (to 11:15)

[Anonymous]

Oh wow. I’ll try to find proof, but it looks like they’re saying on Reddit they have evidence that Matt Damon did call Sony and pushed for Blake’s cut.

I was making fun of Ryan and Blake for going to beb and Matt but I guess it worked. Hollywood power players definitely stick together.

A little surprised as the directors cut is considered sacred in Hollywood but I guess if you’re doing a buddy a favor oh well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Livetweet: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925

Sounds like a rough start for WP, unless Liman is going to be like this with both sides:

All rise!
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: This is a case about making a movie, one with highly charged romantic and sexual themes. After signing on, an intimacy coordinator was made available. The book called for sexy scenes

Judge: That doesn't mean you agree to harassment.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: There is caselaw about discussion of oral sex in a writer's room - in a typical office setting, it's inappropriate. But Mr. Baldoni stands accused of commenting on her wardrobe

Judge Liman: Was he allowed, while dancing, to touch her wherever?
Baldoni's Bach: That's not what the facts show. There's no evidence that anyone was taking aim at Blake Livery because she was a woman. It was about making a film with a certain sexual aesthetic

Here's the rest of the tweets from Baldoni's opener:

Baldoni's Bach: A petty or trivial slight does not constitute a hostile environment. They're bringing in the small potatoes.
Judge Liman: What if the men on the set were commenting, You look hot, only to the women?
Baldoni's Bach: It was resolved

Judge Liman: What is the significance of the apology?
Baldoni's Bach: That the office took every complaint seriously. See Liebowitz v. NY Transit Authority, the 2d Circuit decision. Here, they don't have an adverse act, only a so-called smear campaign

Baldoni's Bach: All they have in Mr. Baldoni promoting himself, and advocating for victims of domestic violence - that is not against Ms. Lively. At most, there are other people introducing content onto the Internet, then some thumbs-ups. It's PR

Judge Liman: How do you distinguish amplifying negative content from generating it, as retaliation?
Baldoni's Bach: If an associate in my office went and talked to a court without my permission and I can't respond, I don't control them. Here, Ms. Lively had control

Baldoni's Bach: If you're employee, Social Security is withheld, you get medical insurance - that's not the case here, under Title 7
Judge Liman: That's not strictly true. You can be an employee without a W2.
Baldoni's Bach: She claims millions in damages

Baldoni's lawyer Alexandra Shapiro: On defamation, Ms Lively's claims are based entirely on counsel's statements - her claims fail. Mr. Freedman's statement reflected his opinions.
Judge Liman: But he called it a desperate attempt, to ruin others' lives

Judge Liman: This is like Carroll versus Trump.
Baldoni's Shapiro: A lawyer, in essentially a tabloid dispute, can make these arguments. A lot of the evidence known to Mr. Freedman at the time are easily interpreted as Mr. Freedman did, on her motivation

Judge Liman: That suggests a dispute of fact [and therefore no summary judgment]
Baldoni's Shapiro: The Trump case was different, the President made clearly factual statements, I never met that woman, when there were photos showing that was false

Baldoni's Shapiro: What Ms. Lively is trying to do here is say she can leak a complaint before it is filed to the New York Times, and his lawyer is not allowed to respond until he files his answer 20 days later
Judge Liman: He could say, these allegations are wrong

Judge Liman: But there are limits, when he gets into motive
Baldoni's Shapiro: These were statements of opinion. Carroll versus Trump is different, it was about facts, not opinion. Mr. Freedman was making a general denial. But know lawyers are not objective

Baldoni's Shapiro: Ms Lively kept refusing to sign the contract-
Judge Liman: What about the open items, on stills and confidentiality and the like?
Baldoni's Shapiro: There was back and forth about those issues.

Baldoni's 3d lawyer today Ellyn S. Garofalo: Here are cases: the O'Connor case, and two more recent ones from 2025: Hill v Workday describes what must be shown to establish the situs of the contract and of the wrongful conduct. Compare that case

Baldoni's Garofalo: To allege retaliation, you have to have specific facts - what decisions were made, and where. Ms Lively says some may have occurred in California, without facts. A Judge Furman case-
Judge Liman: I'm aware of that.

Judge Liman: What work does "made and performed" in the contract do?
Baldoni's Garofalo: I'm not entire sure. But under a straight extraterritoriality analysis, the outcome is the same. On sanctions, it is plaintiff's burden to show the elements. They haven't

Lively's attorneys up:
Judge: I'll hear from counsel for Lively.
Lively's lawyer: They say Ms Lively was not targeted on the basis of her gender-
Judge Liman: Don't your Title 7 claims cover it all?
Lively's lawyer: We are seeking damages beyond Title 7. She admit the facts are disputed

Lively's lawyer (seems to be Kristin Bender) - He came into her trailer and glanced at her, she says. He calls it trivial. Ms. Lively and veteran make up and hair specialists say they said No No No - her breasts were exposed and Mr. Heath came in

Judge Liman: Can you distinguish Mr. Heath from Mr. Baldoni?
Lively's lawyer: Both are attributable to Wayfarer.
Judge Liman: Your point on kissed and nuzzled, what is your limiting principle? Can a director improvise?
Lively's lawyer: Only with consent

Judge Liman: Could a director direct the female and male lead to touch each other in a different way than in the script?
Lively's lawyer: Not without consent. There are intimacy coordinators, nudity riders.
Judge Liman: Are you saying they are required by statute?

Lively's lawyer: There must be consent to touch.
Judge Liman: What is the limit? In a dance scene, saying to put hand in a different part of the back - might be OK. Where do you draw the line?
Lively's lawyer: There is a subjective standard: She did not consent

Lively's lawyer: This was a dance sequence. He leans in and kisses her, nuzzles her - she leans away, you can see the look on her face in the video - she is clearly having her boundaries cross. She says, Let's talk

Lively's lawyer: The only way to make sure it is acceptable is to get consent.
Judge Liman: Are you saying if he suggests more graphic scenes, it is harassment?
Lively's lawyer: She signed on to a particular script. That was her expectation. Mr. Baldoni changed it

Lively's lawyer: The author of the book said she did not think it should be hot and sexy. But Mr. Baldoni added in to crawl toward him for oral sex, and climaxing together
Judge Liman: You have brought up other women
Lively's lawyer: It is MeToo evidence

Lively's lawyer: There was Jenny Slate, and Isabela Ferrer. That's Liebowitz case was different, she was not harassed herself. That is not the case we have here. I will move on to retaliation. The defendants take too narrow a view

Lively's lawyer: When she complained, Mr. Baldoni became huffy. So she negotiated a protection document, about retaliation.
Judge Liman: That could be a contract claim.
Lively's lawyer: It covered changes in attitude, sarcasm, as an adverse employment action

Lively's lawyer: Ms. Hoover was so disturbed how they talked about Ms. Lively that she never spoke with them again.
Judge Liman: So the retaliation was not very effective
Lively's lawyer: You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. It went digital

Lively's lawyer: She said she did not want pictures with him. That was protected conduct - it includes any kind of opposition, an informal protest.
Judge Liman: Is accusing a person protected? Can a person not respond?
Lively's lawyer: Cannot besmirch

Break (to 11:15)

Please, there is no need to copy and paste this. It's available on twitter very clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow. I’ll try to find proof, but it looks like they’re saying on Reddit they have evidence that Matt Damon did call Sony and pushed for Blake’s cut.

I was making fun of Ryan and Blake for going to beb and Matt but I guess it worked. Hollywood power players definitely stick together.

A little surprised as the directors cut is considered sacred in Hollywood but I guess if you’re doing a buddy a favor oh well

Director's cut is "sacred" if you are a respected director. Not if you are some nobody no one has ever heard of.

[Anonymous]

I but this theory. One, they never expected it to get this far. These psychopaths figured they’d steamroll him into submission and destroy his life for sport. But two, they also figured he must be as phony and degenerate as they are, and that they’d dig up dirt. The only dirt is their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Livetweet: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925

Sounds like a rough start for WP, unless Liman is going to be like this with both sides:

All rise!
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: This is a case about making a movie, one with highly charged romantic and sexual themes. After signing on, an intimacy coordinator was made available. The book called for sexy scenes

Judge: That doesn't mean you agree to harassment.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: There is caselaw about discussion of oral sex in a writer's room - in a typical office setting, it's inappropriate. But Mr. Baldoni stands accused of commenting on her wardrobe

Judge Liman: Was he allowed, while dancing, to touch her wherever?
Baldoni's Bach: That's not what the facts show. There's no evidence that anyone was taking aim at Blake Livery because she was a woman. It was about making a film with a certain sexual aesthetic

Here's the rest of the tweets from Baldoni's opener:

Baldoni's Bach: A petty or trivial slight does not constitute a hostile environment. They're bringing in the small potatoes.
Judge Liman: What if the men on the set were commenting, You look hot, only to the women?
Baldoni's Bach: It was resolved

Judge Liman: What is the significance of the apology?
Baldoni's Bach: That the office took every complaint seriously. See Liebowitz v. NY Transit Authority, the 2d Circuit decision. Here, they don't have an adverse act, only a so-called smear campaign

Baldoni's Bach: All they have in Mr. Baldoni promoting himself, and advocating for victims of domestic violence - that is not against Ms. Lively. At most, there are other people introducing content onto the Internet, then some thumbs-ups. It's PR

Judge Liman: How do you distinguish amplifying negative content from generating it, as retaliation?
Baldoni's Bach: If an associate in my office went and talked to a court without my permission and I can't respond, I don't control them. Here, Ms. Lively had control

Baldoni's Bach: If you're employee, Social Security is withheld, you get medical insurance - that's not the case here, under Title 7
Judge Liman: That's not strictly true. You can be an employee without a W2.
Baldoni's Bach: She claims millions in damages

Baldoni's lawyer Alexandra Shapiro: On defamation, Ms Lively's claims are based entirely on counsel's statements - her claims fail. Mr. Freedman's statement reflected his opinions.
Judge Liman: But he called it a desperate attempt, to ruin others' lives

Judge Liman: This is like Carroll versus Trump.
Baldoni's Shapiro: A lawyer, in essentially a tabloid dispute, can make these arguments. A lot of the evidence known to Mr. Freedman at the time are easily interpreted as Mr. Freedman did, on her motivation

Judge Liman: That suggests a dispute of fact [and therefore no summary judgment]
Baldoni's Shapiro: The Trump case was different, the President made clearly factual statements, I never met that woman, when there were photos showing that was false

Baldoni's Shapiro: What Ms. Lively is trying to do here is say she can leak a complaint before it is filed to the New York Times, and his lawyer is not allowed to respond until he files his answer 20 days later
Judge Liman: He could say, these allegations are wrong

Judge Liman: But there are limits, when he gets into motive
Baldoni's Shapiro: These were statements of opinion. Carroll versus Trump is different, it was about facts, not opinion. Mr. Freedman was making a general denial. But know lawyers are not objective

Baldoni's Shapiro: Ms Lively kept refusing to sign the contract-
Judge Liman: What about the open items, on stills and confidentiality and the like?
Baldoni's Shapiro: There was back and forth about those issues.

Baldoni's 3d lawyer today Ellyn S. Garofalo: Here are cases: the O'Connor case, and two more recent ones from 2025: Hill v Workday describes what must be shown to establish the situs of the contract and of the wrongful conduct. Compare that case

Baldoni's Garofalo: To allege retaliation, you have to have specific facts - what decisions were made, and where. Ms Lively says some may have occurred in California, without facts. A Judge Furman case-
Judge Liman: I'm aware of that.

Judge Liman: What work does "made and performed" in the contract do?
Baldoni's Garofalo: I'm not entire sure. But under a straight extraterritoriality analysis, the outcome is the same. On sanctions, it is plaintiff's burden to show the elements. They haven't

Lively's attorneys up:
Judge: I'll hear from counsel for Lively.
Lively's lawyer: They say Ms Lively was not targeted on the basis of her gender-
Judge Liman: Don't your Title 7 claims cover it all?
Lively's lawyer: We are seeking damages beyond Title 7. She admit the facts are disputed

Lively's lawyer (seems to be Kristin Bender) - He came into her trailer and glanced at her, she says. He calls it trivial. Ms. Lively and veteran make up and hair specialists say they said No No No - her breasts were exposed and Mr. Heath came in

Judge Liman: Can you distinguish Mr. Heath from Mr. Baldoni?
Lively's lawyer: Both are attributable to Wayfarer.
Judge Liman: Your point on kissed and nuzzled, what is your limiting principle? Can a director improvise?
Lively's lawyer: Only with consent

Judge Liman: Could a director direct the female and male lead to touch each other in a different way than in the script?
Lively's lawyer: Not without consent. There are intimacy coordinators, nudity riders.
Judge Liman: Are you saying they are required by statute?

Lively's lawyer: There must be consent to touch.
Judge Liman: What is the limit? In a dance scene, saying to put hand in a different part of the back - might be OK. Where do you draw the line?
Lively's lawyer: There is a subjective standard: She did not consent

Lively's lawyer: This was a dance sequence. He leans in and kisses her, nuzzles her - she leans away, you can see the look on her face in the video - she is clearly having her boundaries cross. She says, Let's talk

Lively's lawyer: The only way to make sure it is acceptable is to get consent.
Judge Liman: Are you saying if he suggests more graphic scenes, it is harassment?
Lively's lawyer: She signed on to a particular script. That was her expectation. Mr. Baldoni changed it

Lively's lawyer: The author of the book said she did not think it should be hot and sexy. But Mr. Baldoni added in to crawl toward him for oral sex, and climaxing together
Judge Liman: You have brought up other women
Lively's lawyer: It is MeToo evidence

Lively's lawyer: There was Jenny Slate, and Isabela Ferrer. That's Liebowitz case was different, she was not harassed herself. That is not the case we have here. I will move on to retaliation. The defendants take too narrow a view

Lively's lawyer: When she complained, Mr. Baldoni became huffy. So she negotiated a protection document, about retaliation.
Judge Liman: That could be a contract claim.
Lively's lawyer: It covered changes in attitude, sarcasm, as an adverse employment action

Lively's lawyer: Ms. Hoover was so disturbed how they talked about Ms. Lively that she never spoke with them again.
Judge Liman: So the retaliation was not very effective
Lively's lawyer: You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. It went digital

Lively's lawyer: She said she did not want pictures with him. That was protected conduct - it includes any kind of opposition, an informal protest.
Judge Liman: Is accusing a person protected? Can a person not respond?
Lively's lawyer: Cannot besmirch

Break (to 11:15)

Please, there is no need to copy and paste this. It's available on twitter very clearly.

DP but I appreciate it. Twitter is a cesspool.