Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake is a C-list nobody if we’re being totally honest. Swift has the most to lose here.

I’m sure I didn’t see all the texts, but the ones I saw didn’t seem bad at all. They were talking about their friendship. What’s toxic about that?

So I don’t think there is any one text that is explosive for Taylor. There are a couple things that have damaged her image. She’s be fine, but this has been damaging.

For one, I still sometimes watch the today show (I know that’s sad) and they have been covering this case this week. I was surprised to look up during my workout and see that they had featured Taylor’s text calling Justin a little B.

We all know Taylor is an adult and that shouldn’t be shocking but considering that today show covered every step of the eras tour gushing over Taylor, it was a little jarring to see that on morning television and it’s not what her usual mainstream audience sees from her. It’s usually such a positive story on the morning shows about how she loves her fans or she helps her dancers or whatever.

But bigger than that, Taylor was caught lying and scheming. She has blatantly put out statements that she had nothing to do with this and didn’t know what was going on when she was very involved. Her best friend Ashley who she took to the Super Bowl was the one who orchestrated the Abel phone exchange between Jones and lively and led to the Vanzam lawsuit. So Taylor was intimately involved in the dirtiest part of this and she blatantly lied.

I understand that she was on Blake’s side and probably believing everything that Blake said whether it was true or not, but it was offputting that she helped Blake steal a movie that wasn’t hers considering that she has sued people for “stealing” before like Olivia Rodrigo.

It just makes her look petty and small, especially since she was coming off a $2.2 billion tour and supposedly living the love story of the century so she really shouldn’t be caught up in this petty nonsense. We all want to believe celebs are better than us, not as petty as us, and have more exciting lives. And this kind of shows that they really get down in the dirt. She spends her rare few days off from tour plotting against Justin Baldoni? It’s just sad.

[Anonymous]

I watched a few of the recaps from the content creators of today’s oral arguments, and it seems like the judge is inclined to kick a bunch stuff.

SH: the judge did not seem inclined to apply California law extraterritorially, which would kick her FEHA SH claims; he also did not seem inclined to rule she was an employee, though he said you could be an employee without a W-2. He is focused on how things happened in practice and because of that the content creators believe the PGA letter will hurt. If he rules she was an independent contractor her federal (title 7) SH claims go away.

Spoliation: on spoliation, he was disengaged, which made observers think he had already made up his mind to kick that one. Wilkie and Manatt might have anticipated that because they let a junior partner argue that claim.

Retaliation: this is where it gets interesting. Wilkie and Manatt seem very aware of the problem the temporal gap will present (18 mos btwn Lively’s complaints on set and the supposed smear campaign) because they have moved the goal post and are now saying Lively’s protected activity was her refusal to go to the premier with Baldoni. They said this is a form of protest which can be considered protected activity. The content creators rolled their eyes at that one (it’s a reach). Another hurdle is that ruling in her favor would require the judge to set precedent because bad press has never been ruled an adverse employment action. The judge seemed more inclined to allow it to move forward as a breach of contract claim since lively defined retaliation broadly in the 17 point document that wayfarer signed. Though I’m not sure if they brought it as a contract claim too (I think they did but I’m not sure).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should he have apologized for things he didn't do? That would have been used against him. I think denying / no response was fine. Leaving would be better but perhaps they were blocked or forced to stay

PP here. I definitely don't think he should have apologized for anything he didn't do. That was Heath's phrasing, not mine. Heath said that he thought Baldoni should have apologized, or that that was the correct way to deal with the issue, and that Baldoni couldn't do that so Heath did. I also thought that was weird.

There's no indication that they were prevented from leaving. I think the concern was that shooting was supposed to resume the next day and that if they couldn't come to some agreement on the 4th, Lively would not return to set on the 5th. That's an expensive problem. However, knowing that this meeting was first raised in early November, it then becomes a question as to why it wasn't scheduled earlier, and why Wayfarer/Sony had not been working with Lively all along to make sure she was good to rejoin production on the 5th. That they apparently showed up to this meeting not even understanding it was going to be about Lively's concerns about behavior on set, even though the document her lawyers had sent two months prior literally says that she wants such a meeting, makes no sense.

I hope not all movies are run this way and that this is an extreme outlier due to Wayfarer being a tiny and disorganized studio, Lively being more demanding or difficult than typical, and the weird set up with Sony where they were trying to avoid getting involved even though multiple parties were begging them to. If this is normal, why does anyone want to make movies? Sounds like hell on earth. I would quit my job yesterday if this is how my workplace was run. I'd go get some $15/hr retail job before I dealt with this level of incompetence. Just a hard no.

One thing you missed between November 23 and January 5 is that they got permission after the strike to continue shooting. Blake refused to come on so they had to pivot and she other scenes so you’re sort of acting like they were sitting around with a lot of time on their hands really they were probably doing a lot to move direction to accommodate Blake not coming in. Believe she went to Europe with Ryan during that time. Sorry she’s a really a hole.

The Protections document went to everyone on November 9th, not the 23rd. And if they were motivated to get Blake back on set, why not... go through the document her lawyer sent about why she wasn't yet returning to set and have a meeting to address it and then move on with your lives? Why was Blake reaching out to Baldoni to set up this meeting? Why wasn't Wayfarer and Sony setting up a formal meeting (in which case they could have hosted it elsewhere, like at Sony's New York offices) to sort through it? Or better yet, have the lawyers hammer out the details and then once you basically have an agreement in place, bring everyone in to shake hands and agree to it so that shooting could restart on a positive note. Ange and Todd should have been talking to both sides and saying stuff like "I know Blake wants to make this work -- she's very passionate about the movie" and "Of course Justin wants Blake to feel comfortable on set." The emails and texts between executives/producers show a bunch of petty, emotional, back stabby people around and above Lively and Baldoni, who were of course both acting childish as well.

There were simply no adults in the room. What an embarrassment.

Agree with you but hindsight is 2020 and I do think Justin and Jamie had no idea how bad it was going to get. The strike ended and Blake said she wasn’t coming back till after the holidays so they pivoted to shoot other scenes. It seems like the texts between Justin and Blake at that point were still cordial so I think he was really blindsided by this list and had no idea what was coming. It’s easy to look back now and say they should’ve done something differently during this time but I really don’t think they were seeing the big picture.

Sony knew more of the story and you’re right they should’ve acted rather sooner and more decisively rather than just watch this fire get bigger and bigger.

I’m sure they regret that now because they look utterly incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Brief video clips here of Freedman, McCrawley, and Garafalo after court https://www.tmz.com/2026/01/22/justin-baldoni-bryan-freedman-asked-settlement-blake-lively/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched a few of the recaps from the content creators of today’s oral arguments, and it seems like the judge is inclined to kick a bunch stuff.

SH: the judge did not seem inclined to apply California law extraterritorially, which would kick her FEHA SH claims; he also did not seem inclined to rule she was an employee, though he said you could be an employee without a W-2. He is focused on how things happened in practice and because of that the content creators believe the PGA letter will hurt. If he rules she was an independent contractor her federal (title 7) SH claims go away.

Spoliation: on spoliation, he was disengaged, which made observers think he had already made up his mind to kick that one. Wilkie and Manatt might have anticipated that because they let a junior partner argue that claim.

Retaliation: this is where it gets interesting. Wilkie and Manatt seem very aware of the problem the temporal gap will present (18 mos btwn Lively’s complaints on set and the supposed smear campaign) because they have moved the goal post and are now saying Lively’s protected activity was her refusal to go to the premier with Baldoni. They said this is a form of protest which can be considered protected activity. The content creators rolled their eyes at that one (it’s a reach). Another hurdle is that ruling in her favor would require the judge to set precedent because bad press has never been ruled an adverse employment action. The judge seemed more inclined to allow it to move forward as a breach of contract claim since lively defined retaliation broadly in the 17 point document that wayfarer signed. Though I’m not sure if they brought it as a contract claim too (I think they did but I’m not sure).

PP again. One other thing. The judge doesn’t seem inclined to honor the unsigned contract and will likely base his rulings on the offer letter. I can’t remember what implications that carries for the various claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake is a C-list nobody if we’re being totally honest. Swift has the most to lose here.

I’m sure I didn’t see all the texts, but the ones I saw didn’t seem bad at all. They were talking about their friendship. What’s toxic about that?

So I don’t think there is any one text that is explosive for Taylor. There are a couple things that have damaged her image. She’s be fine, but this has been damaging.

For one, I still sometimes watch the today show (I know that’s sad) and they have been covering this case this week. I was surprised to look up during my workout and see that they had featured Taylor’s text calling Justin a little B.

We all know Taylor is an adult and that shouldn’t be shocking but considering that today show covered every step of the eras tour gushing over Taylor, it was a little jarring to see that on morning television and it’s not what her usual mainstream audience sees from her. It’s usually such a positive story on the morning shows about how she loves her fans or she helps her dancers or whatever.

But bigger than that, Taylor was caught lying and scheming. She has blatantly put out statements that she had nothing to do with this and didn’t know what was going on when she was very involved. Her best friend Ashley who she took to the Super Bowl was the one who orchestrated the Abel phone exchange between Jones and lively and led to the Vanzam lawsuit. So Taylor was intimately involved in the dirtiest part of this and she blatantly lied.

I understand that she was on Blake’s side and probably believing everything that Blake said whether it was true or not, but it was offputting that she helped Blake steal a movie that wasn’t hers considering that she has sued people for “stealing” before like Olivia Rodrigo.

It just makes her look petty and small, especially since she was coming off a $2.2 billion tour and supposedly living the love story of the century so she really shouldn’t be caught up in this petty nonsense. We all want to believe celebs are better than us, not as petty as us, and have more exciting lives. And this kind of shows that they really get down in the dirt. She spends her rare few days off from tour plotting against Justin Baldoni? It’s just sad.

Eh I kind of read it as Taylor being an unconditionally supportive friend to Blake, whom she believed was being taken advantage of. I’m just surprised she wasn’t more careful but I think she just trusted the wrong person. I think once she realized Blake was doing something shady, Taylor distanced herself and the friendship fell apart. But I haven’t been following closely so I’m not sure if this lines up with the timeline

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake is a C-list nobody if we’re being totally honest. Swift has the most to lose here.

I’m sure I didn’t see all the texts, but the ones I saw didn’t seem bad at all. They were talking about their friendship. What’s toxic about that?

I actually really liked the exchange where Lively reached out to say she felt Taylor had been distant and to apologize for being so focused on her own stuff, and then Taylor confirms it was an issue and very honestly explains what was off-putting about Blake's behavior, and the Blake writes an apology wrapped in a self deprecating joke. It was a really functional exchange between old friends about normal friend issues and they both come off as mature, empathetic, and functional.

It was nice to see that I'm an ocean of documents showing people at their worst (including Blake and Taylor).

Agree. It was the only part of this that looked REAL. And I am not a Blake fan but did think her customer service line was actually funny.

What do we think is going on with them now? It was weird that Travis unfollowed Ryan and Taylor has had dinner with every female celeb in NY at this point aside from Blake. So was she pissed in January when Baldoni released the website and her name got dragged in for the first time because of and the rooftop scene meeting? Do you think her team told her this means you could be dragged into this case if it proceeds?

That’s my theory.

[Anonymous]

I’m on the fence and if they’re avoiding each other until this is s settled or if Taylor actually booted her. If I had to bet I think Taylor booted her because she doesn’t let anything interfere with her brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence and if they’re avoiding each other until this is s settled or if Taylor actually booted her. If I had to bet I think Taylor booted her because she doesn’t let anything interfere with her brand.

Taylor definitely booted her. Blake put her in a really compromising position

[Anonymous]

I've always thought Swift would take her back in her heartbeat if she wins the case. But who knows anymore, my first impressions were completely wrong. I thought Swift was mad when the "dragons" text was leaked because Lively was throwing her name around, and it's pretty much the opposite of that. I believed Swift when she said she really wasn't involved.

[Anonymous]

Swift is a brand. And the brand needed to separate itself and create distance from the whole lawsuit. I don't think the brand will be impacted by this at all.

Taylor as a person has made lots of questionable decisions in her life but most aren't invested in her as a person, they are invested in the brand. What she does in her private life is pretty disconnected from the brand and the public life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake is a C-list nobody if we’re being totally honest. Swift has the most to lose here.

I’m sure I didn’t see all the texts, but the ones I saw didn’t seem bad at all. They were talking about their friendship. What’s toxic about that?

Those are a different set. The ones where Baldoni are discussed are the bad ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched a few of the recaps from the content creators of today’s oral arguments, and it seems like the judge is inclined to kick a bunch stuff.

SH: the judge did not seem inclined to apply California law extraterritorially, which would kick her FEHA SH claims; he also did not seem inclined to rule she was an employee, though he said you could be an employee without a W-2. He is focused on how things happened in practice and because of that the content creators believe the PGA letter will hurt. If he rules she was an independent contractor her federal (title 7) SH claims go away.

Spoliation: on spoliation, he was disengaged, which made observers think he had already made up his mind to kick that one. Wilkie and Manatt might have anticipated that because they let a junior partner argue that claim.

Retaliation: this is where it gets interesting. Wilkie and Manatt seem very aware of the problem the temporal gap will present (18 mos btwn Lively’s complaints on set and the supposed smear campaign) because they have moved the goal post and are now saying Lively’s protected activity was her refusal to go to the premier with Baldoni. They said this is a form of protest which can be considered protected activity. The content creators rolled their eyes at that one (it’s a reach). Another hurdle is that ruling in her favor would require the judge to set precedent because bad press has never been ruled an adverse employment action. The judge seemed more inclined to allow it to move forward as a breach of contract claim since lively defined retaliation broadly in the 17 point document that wayfarer signed. Though I’m not sure if they brought it as a contract claim too (I think they did but I’m not sure).

PP again. One other thing. The judge doesn’t seem inclined to honor the unsigned contract and will likely base his rulings on the offer letter. I can’t remember what implications that carries for the various claims.

I am not going to try to predict what Liman will do, but IF he finds her to be an independent contractor (as opposed to employee) and if he finds that California law does not apply, a very significant portion of Blake’s case is gone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Swift is a brand. And the brand needed to separate itself and create distance from the whole lawsuit. I don't think the brand will be impacted by this at all.

Taylor as a person has made lots of questionable decisions in her life but most aren't invested in her as a person, they are invested in the brand. What she does in her private life is pretty disconnected from the brand and the public life.

This is out of touch. Swift is getting dragged for this like nothing I’ve ever seen. Millions of women are not just re-visiting the Scooter, masters, and “Taylor’s version” narrative, they now believe all of it was a con. Not to mention it dovetails on the worst album of her career. Can’t take dings like this at her age. Middle aged female pop stars don’t have come backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swift is a brand. And the brand needed to separate itself and create distance from the whole lawsuit. I don't think the brand will be impacted by this at all.

Taylor as a person has made lots of questionable decisions in her life but most aren't invested in her as a person, they are invested in the brand. What she does in her private life is pretty disconnected from the brand and the public life.

This is out of touch. Swift is getting dragged for this like nothing I’ve ever seen. Millions of women are not just re-visiting the Scooter, masters, and “Taylor’s version” narrative, they now believe all of it was a con. Not to mention it dovetails on the worst album of her career. Can’t take dings like this at her age. Middle aged female pop stars don’t have come backs.

I'm familiar with that history but can you explain why it's implicated here?