Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The California one might be particularly tough. He kept asking Gottlieb when should California law apply and doesn’t sound like Gottlieb had a great answer. I’m not sure if it’s the offer letter or the unsigned contract in which the parties agreed to California jurisdiction (I think it’s the latter which is already problematic) but Baldoni’s lawyers also made the point that a contract can’t override law/that clause is not enforceable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP, so not sure what PP meant but what springs to mind for me is a text where Baldoni said Blake playing victim was straight out of Swift's playbook. His friend asked what he meant and he said "Scooter." Some of the Swifties and anti-Swifties have jumped on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Scooter is not a good guy either but legally he owned Taylor's songs. Her team had signed the contracts and they were legally his. When she wanted them back and he wouldn't sell them to her, she made him out to be evil and herself a victim - a horrible man not giving a woman what was rightfully her own creative work - and her fan base turned on him. He stood firm and she eventually re-recorded those songs but she definitely tried to manipulate her fan base to see her as a victim in a situation where she was just in a contract she didn't want to be in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Scooter is not a good guy either but legally he owned Taylor's songs. Her team had signed the contracts and they were legally his. When she wanted them back and he wouldn't sell them to her, she made him out to be evil and herself a victim - a horrible man not giving a woman what was rightfully her own creative work - and her fan base turned on him. He stood firm and she eventually re-recorded those songs but she definitely tried to manipulate her fan base to see her as a victim in a situation where she was just in a contract she didn't want to be in.

DP and I'm not even a big Swift fan but I think this is a weird stretch. Swift is far from the first artist to be upset when someone else owns some aspect of their musical catalog and outright refuses to sell them to the artist. Famously, Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog, and later taunted McCartney about it (there's an interview where Paul imitates Michael Jackson doing this, it's pretty funny, but you can tell Paul was incensed). McCartney later regained the rights but it was a big deal at the time and you know what? It was 100% a dick move on Jackson's part.

The Scooter thing is no different. Sure, he owned the masters legally. That doesn't make it right, and he could have sold them to Taylor. By re-recording them, she totally undermined their value to Scooter anyway. A lot of people (myself included) think it's a shame when the weird structure of the music industry results in artists who created their work not owning it or having the right to decide how it is used. That goes for Taylor or any other artist. I don't see how the texts between Taylor and Blake would change anyone's mind on that.

[Anonymous]

My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

She played the victim and had her psycho fans cyber bully and destroy a guy for “stealing” her music masters, while here she is busted red-handed trying to help her bestie steal this movie and its sequel from an innocent man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

Hair and makeup people also have to appear on set on a certain schedule but are often independent contractors. I don’t think the existence of a schedule means much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

Hair and makeup people also have to appear on set on a certain schedule but are often independent contractors. I don’t think the existence of a schedule means much.

It's central to the case law.

Remember this is not to decide if Lively is an independent contractor for purposes of tax law. It's just to see if she can be *treated* as an employee for purposes of sexual harassment law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone involved in this mess is completely insufferable. Every single one of them.

This.

But the texts that were all over MSM this morning paint a bad picture of Lively and her celeb pals.

I’ve got to believe Damon is furious he was sucked into this. Even if Lively somehow makes it through this never ending scandal, nobody will want to work with her again. She will need to disappear for 5-10 before trying to reinvent herself.

Reinventing herself as what? She's a mediocre actress with an oversized sense of her importance. Her forties are around the corner and she lacks the talent to be a Susan sarandon or Helen mirren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They'll get nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

Hair and makeup people also have to appear on set on a certain schedule but are often independent contractors. I don’t think the existence of a schedule means much.

It's central to the case law.

Remember this is not to decide if Lively is an independent contractor for purposes of tax law. It's just to see if she can be *treated* as an employee for purposes of sexual harassment law.

Central to the case law, please provide a few citations then.

[Anonymous]

A few pages back someone was claiming that Colleen Hoover never wanted Justin Baldoni to play Ryle and that it was a decision that was sprung on her. Huh?

This is an email she sent Justin in 2019:

"Have you given any thought to whether you would want an acting role in this? Say, maybe, Ryle? I could see it."

[Anonymous]

The way Blake and the pro-BL users here talk about Justin is so unlike the way I've ever seen someone talk about a true predator, and I don't think you guys realize your own language is betraying you lmao.

Like apparently JB was a s*x pest, but he's also an ineffectual loser of a leader. Make it make sense!

[Anonymous]

Have you guys discussed the fact that Blake called herself Brandon's pimp and told him she wanted him to work the corner? Rules for thee, not for me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on Team Wait for the Trial, and I’m not sure what to make of all these released texts and documents. It seems like the women all hated Baldoni. I’m still troubled on how much he was beloved my his castmates on Jane the Virgin and trying to figure out why this was so different.

The two things that stick out to me, though, is how mean Lively’s tone was in her texts and celebratory way she talks about getting the best of him in various interactions. Meanwhile Baldoni’s texts seem super sad and hurt and confused.

He may be insensitive and have low EQ. But the ladies seem petulant and kind of gleeful in their insults. Am I alone in this?

I mean, you are clearly not. But yes what struck me from this latest dump was that it seemed like from everything released last year that they had a very cordial friendly, joking, buddy relationship until production started so yeah I will say I was shocked to see as early as preproduction Blake calling him a doofus and a clown and really disparaging him.

She clearly had it out from him from the beginning and it’s odd that she even signed onto this movie. She seemed to hate him so much. I think she was mortally wounded when he did not immediately gush over her rooftop scene, which is kind of ironic because we later find out it was Ryan’s writing. She and Taylor seemed to go on this bandwagon that he doesn’t listen to women or thinks he’s better than women, but the scene was written by a man.

It also seemed he said something to tick Taylor off about pop music or the state of pop music or something that she took as disparaging. They might’ve been both surprised when he wasn’t just gushing over her and it might’ve offended them.

He seems like an odd duck for sure and maybe he doesn’t come off so great but I don’t think he was malicious, and I don’t think he was just walking around sexually harassing every woman on set.

It’s annoying that people are rewriting history saying none of the women liked him. Isabella did seem to have a fondness for him until after the shoot when she met Blake. Colleen also seemed to like him. They’ve been working together since 2019 and she wanted him to both direct and star in a project that meant a lot to her. There are three more Colleen Hoover books being adapted into movies either already out or coming out later this year so to act like it just fell into his lap is silly, they were corresponding for years about it prior to this movie.

Again, it turned in 2024 all of a sudden and in her deposition, she said she unfollowed him because Blake told her to.

She also seemed to lose her way and get caught up in the marketing… Do people remember she put out that it ends with those coloring book that was immediately taken from the market because of backlash? People thought she was downplay and romanticizing domestic violence? I really think a lot of people got caught up in the whole Barbie Deadpool, fun summer movie marketing and I think a lot of of them took it out on Justin when he wasn’t playing that game. it honestly seems like he’s the only one that had half a brain, but I realize the bar is really low with this group.

Liz plank seemed to get along with him fine doing a podcast with him for years until she got in with Ryan Reynolds, who now run reproduction company with her.

So I’m just not convinced all these women hated him immediately just though Jenny Slate certainly seemed too. Still not clear why though all her statements have been incredibly vague.

Colleen didn't want Justin to direct or star in the movie. She testified in her deposition that she was surprised when she learned he planned to direct, and that this announcement happened in a meeting where Christy Hall (the screenwriter) was also present and that the sentiment in the room was that this was not a good idea because of the subject matter of the film -- everyone thought it should be a woman. It was briefly floated that Justin could co-direct with Hall but that obviously didn't happen. At no point did Colleen advocate for Justin to direct.

She also had nothing to do with him being cast as Ryle and said she was told only after the decision was made. She doesn't know how the decision was made.

Justin has said in interviews that Colleen wanted him to star and direct, but that appears to have been a lie. I'm not going to fault him too much for that because it's clear that celebs lie about their projects in interviews all the time. It's very obvious that everyone involved with the movie understood that appealing to fans of Colleen Hoover was going to be a big element of the success of the film, so I get why everyone involved invoked her name often in interviews and wanted to assure fans that the movie reflected Colleen's wishes.

Still, in context, the lies about Colleen being the reason he starred and directed do seem manipulative, because in retrospect it was very arrogant for someone with as little experience as he had to try to do that with what was set to be a major film with a lot of buzz around it, due to the popularity of the book. It's not just that he'd only directed two (much, much smaller, and with tiny budgets) features at that point. He'd also never had a lead role in a major film. The only other movie he has starred in before IEWU was a straight-to-DVD/streaming clunker called Con Man that looks like a total PoS. He also didn't do a ton of TV work before Jane the Virgin -- just little bit parts in a few shows, some TV movies, and a handful of forgettable films. It's actually kind of insane that he wound up starring in and directing one of the highest grossing romantic dramas in the last decade.

Link to this? Either way, she's lying.