Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP and same. I don't use Twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. This is all about power. Blake Stan’s will frame as her standing up for women, but let’s face it, no one would be talking about Blake if it she wasnt adjacent to this male power. All the big male Hollywood players in her corner so she can steamroll him.

It’s a great day for women.

At the end of the day Ryan doesn’t give a crap if his wife produces or not. It’s pretty clear that because she didn’t sign the contract she screwed hersellf out of a huge pay day when the movie made $350 million. Agree with the above poster that they’re just trying to get a financial settlement. I don’t know if what they will get well outweigh the cost that they have spent on legal in PR crisis, but we’ll see.

[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.

Totally agree, this is a place for discussion. Posting a link, which this poster had already done, is more than sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah. No one wants to go to Musk's Twitter cesspool. Get real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I buy 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.

They're bullies who have obviously done this their entire careers. The emails show a choreographed effort to use all of their clout, muscle, and media connections to totally overwhelm their target. Most targets would just lay down and give up. Godspeed to Baldoni for fighting back.

[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)

They're back.
Lively's lawyer: There is no evidence that Ms. Lively leaked to the press. That is a disputed issue... On July 25, defendants contacted TAG. There are notes of that call, the crisis management was about sexual harassment

Lively's lawyer: Control is an issue of fact. That she had input and influence is not the same as control.
Judge Liman: Most employees don't have veto rights.
Lively's lawyer: She had to be available for hair and makeup, she had to play the role

Lively's lawyer: That fact that Mr. Baldoni said he would give her 98% of what she wants shows that she did not have control. I'll turn it over to my colleague.
Lively's 2d lawyer today (Aaron E. Nathan) There is the issue of payment, including the Oakland Raiders

[Note the lawyers are not saying their names, this may be Gottlieb - for now I'll just call him Lively's 2d lawyer]
Lively's 2d lawyer: We think a jury could conclude this was the point they withdrew their demand Ms. Lively comply with the execution condition

Lively's 2d lawyer: Docket 162, they lean into the ALA heavily, saying it is enforceable. They cannot not be heard to claim the ALA is unenforceable.... You can cover statutory claims through these choice of law provisions. It is our right.

Lively's 2d lawyer: Their December 21 statements are verifiable false. This is mixed opinion, references to text messages that are not attached.
Judge Liman: They said they were only responding - but is that defamatory?
Lively's 2d lawyer: Yes, by implication

Lively's 3d lawyer: Wayfarer defendants by July 2024 turned to Signal communications, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Freedman. No Signal communication were preserved until December 2024. They intentionally used Signal's auto-delete function. We are requesting sanctions

Lively's 3d lawyer: We have put in communications with Sage Steele... The evidence that has been lost should warrant blocking their arguments. They downloaded Signal and turned on auto-delete. They went into Settings

Lively's 3d lawyer: By June of 2024, Wayfarer defendants were seeking counsel. By July they were speaking with TAG. And in August they admit expecting litigation. Can the lost communications be credibly explained. No. It was not about hackers

Lively's 3d lawyer: If all they were concerned about was Mr. Baldoni's reputation, there would be no reason for secrecy.
Judge Liman: OK I've heard from the Lively parties.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: On Ms. Ferrer, Ms. Lively was not present when the comment was made

Baldoni's Bach: I'm not sure you are aware of the HBO show Heated Rivalry: two male NHL players explore their relationship. Can they sue? Let's turn to Mr. Heath - they implicitly acknowledge they don't have severity as to Mr. Baldoni. The video was not sexual

Baldoni's Bach: There's no evidence he showed her the video because she was a woman. It was a film about a birthing scene. They were discussing, how do we get these effects? He showed it to men too. Are we in Federal court for this? It's not pornography

Baldoni's Bach: She said to Mr. Heath, I know you were not trying to cop a look. That's her subjective perception. They were having a conversation. In our exhibit 92, she does not even list the incident with Mr. Heath. Do we come to court for something awkward?

[Note: it seems the order of Lively's lawyers has been
1: Ms. Esra A. Hudson, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2: Michael Gottlieb, Willkie Farr DC
and 3: Aaron E Nathan, Willkie Farr NYC]

Baldoni's Bach: The conversation with Hoover, it was trivial - it was just gossiping about someone else. It had no impact on Ms. Hoover. It is not enough for retaliation.

Baldoni's Bach: Under Title 7, look at what's really happening. Contract terms are often for tax purposes. The situation here is that Ms. Lively had control. The PGA letter shows how much. How many employees get to speak directly with the studio heads and author

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP and same. I don't use Twitter.

I may as well keep posting it, I think it is almost over anyway. Glad it is helpful to some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP and same. I don't use Twitter.

I may as well keep posting it, I think it is almost over anyway. Glad it is helpful to some.

Yes please keep posting! Thanks!

[Anonymous]

WF’s audio and visual exhibits have been made available to the public by clerk’s office. Expect that content creators will start linking to them by evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP and same. I don't use Twitter.

I may as well keep posting it, I think it is almost over anyway. Glad it is helpful to some.

Yes please keep posting! Thanks!

God no, it totally is ruining discussion. Doesn’t Jeff have rules about posting third party content without discussion.

[Anonymous]

Not a lawyer and just glanced at the Twitter discussion but it seems like Judge Liman is kind of being tough on both sides, right?

Or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer and just glanced at the Twitter discussion but it seems like Judge Liman is kind of being tough on both sides, right?

Or no?

He should be, it’s a dispositive motion hearing and decision much more open to appeal than the discovery type decisions he has mostly made to date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I buy 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.

They're bullies who have obviously done this their entire careers. The emails show a choreographed effort to use all of their clout, muscle, and media connections to totally overwhelm their target. Most targets would just lay down and give up. Godspeed to Baldoni for fighting back.

Might want to dig deeper into Baha’i before waving that as a flag of virtue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I buy 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.

They're bullies who have obviously done this their entire careers. The emails show a choreographed effort to use all of their clout, muscle, and media connections to totally overwhelm their target. Most targets would just lay down and give up. Godspeed to Baldoni for fighting back.

Might want to dig deeper into Baha’i before waving that as a flag of virtue

I’m sure discriminating because of his religion will go over really well in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor, Ryan and Blake are evil people.

Yes, we know you think that. You've repeated ad nauseam.