Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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."

Oh, don’t get me started on the rewriting history with Colleen on this thread. People are painting it as if 2019 Colleen Hoover was a nobody self publisher, even though she’d sold millions and millions of books, more than 99% of writers ever will. She didn’t sell to Justin on a whim. They had lengthy discussions and yes, she asked him to play Ryle and he was hesitant with directing and acting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

They pointed him as unqualified, even though he has directed movies before and produced them. What has Blake done besides flitted onto a set? She directed Taylor Swift’s video years ago and since then you’ll notice Taylor has done dozens more videos, and never asked Blake to direct her again. She threw her talentless friend of bone which fine that does not act like Blake has directing experience.

Blake‘s rich husband set her up with a production company years ago. She’s not produced one thing. There’s one on IMDb that they announced last year among the bad press and it’s just lingering there with no other cast or crew attached. It will never be made, and we all know it.

Blake tries to say she masterminded this film, yet there were years of work put into it before her name was ever attached. It’s very hard to get financial backing for a film that comes to fruition and justin did all that and she just flitted in and wanted to wardrobe.

She claims she rewrote the script in her PGA letter. I wonder how Christy Hall feels about that? She already blindsided Hall at the premier when hall was asked “we heard Ryan wrote the rooftop scene.” Hall was flustered and didn’t know that. And then we saw the the gushing apology letter Blake had to write to her saying that she was sorry about that.

And yet now it’s coming to light that she claims she rewrote the entire script. It’s also reported that she was in the editing day one day yet and there are emails going around that she slept 1.5 to 3 hours during editing. She was in Italy, filming the sequel to a simple favor through most of the editing.

She did very little work on this film and is trying to take credit for all of it and yet posters are saying Justin wasn’t qualified.right. There would simply not be a movie without him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

But does it matter? This is a very public facing business. It doesn’t really matter if Blake and Taylor are best friends in real life if Taylor isn’t supporting her publicly - what’s the point? Blake could really use public support from someone like Taylor right now don’t you think?

May is long time from now (and there is some speculation that it might even be delayed further because the shut down affected a lot of criminal cases ) and two years past her last movie and that really matters in Hollywood. She launched her hair care line two years ago as well and this is affecting sales. Do you think being seen with Taylor might help those?

I also think Taylor is not dumb and it will look really stupid if Blake wins the case and all of a sudden they’re besties again? It’s also telling that Gigi was a mutual and yet has only been seen with Taylor and for the first time in many years never did a public birthday shout out to Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

I’m also reading on Reddit that Brandon must be embarrassed because he was apparently trashing his Taylor Sheridan show in texts with Blake.

That’s the show that launched him and Taylor Sheridan is pretty beloved, so I would love to see those texts if anyone can link to them.

No matter the outcome of this case, I think a lot of celebs are really embarrassed.

[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.

It is but wayfarer pointed out she negotiated the schedule. It was decided with her not for her. Gottlieb also admitted wayfarer approved anything Blake asked for.

[Anonymous]

How did BL file her 24 taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did BL file her 24 taxes?

Definitely not as an employee. I think filed under Blakel

[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.

I don’t think Liman will want to decide the merits of the SH claims going fwd or not, but he doesn’t have to if he kicks CA law and the “employee” argument. At most I think he lets a breach of conflict claim go forward on the retaliation claim. But what’s the point of that. It’s so minor. If he kicks everything, and leaves her with just a breach of contract claim, I think they settle. Not worth going to court if he guts the core of her case.

[Anonymous]

She was either issued a 1099 or W2, I’m not sure why the confusion around it unless what she filed doesn’t align with the legal arguments

[Anonymous]

Even if you are 100% on Blake’s side, and think that Justin was incompetent and Blake saved the movie, we have to agree on a few realities. Justin played a leading role. Unless I’ve missed something and Blake is saying that she somehow morphed into him and played that role as well? Can we acknowledge that he played a tough character, and he did a good job and that was contributing to the success of the film?

Blake is claiming she directed the whole film, but she was on set for 16 to 20 days and a full 50 percent of the movie is young Lily and young Atlas. She was not on set for those scenes. Justin directed those scenes so even if you believe her on her word that Justin did not direct a thing that Blake appeared in, he at least directed 50% of the movie. But somehow she has framed it as she has taken over directing of the whole movie.

It is crazy to me how people think the making of the movie is the six weeks of the film and not the years before that that went into putting together the infrastructure of the film, which is most of the hard work. I’m not in the industry, but I’m sure many of us have gone to 2 to 3 day work conferences and realized the hard work of the event team securing a space, making sure people have housing and food, making sure presenters are recruited and know where to show up and what to talk about, setting the agenda, registering people. As the producer Justin did and led a team that did a whole bunch of that leg work before Blake was even thought of for this movie.

That’s why I found the PGA letter just maddening. Because it wasn’t just Justin but Blake just dismissed the work of so many, but Justin was at the helm.

So to see people say he was incompetent and shouldn’t be in a leadership role just really dismisses all that work. And I’m not saying that the set was not a horrible crap show, and that the Sony executives dropped the ball as well but people are dismissing that the whole reason Ryan Reynolds was even involved in this train wreck was because Justin did a whole lot of work to build that universe.

[Anonymous]

I think the giant document dump is confusing people. People are reading things that Blake, Justin, and others said in texts and emails that are coming out now in the unsealing, and conflating that with arguments being made in court. They are the same thing.

Blake told friends in private texts/emails that she "basically" had to direct the movie because she felt Justin was so incompetent. But that is not the argument she's making in legal filings. At no point in any of her filings is she contending that, actually, she directed the movie. It's just something she said to friends. Now, depending on whose side you're on here, you might view those claims as either (1) evidence that Blake had a lot of power on the movie and therefore was not an employee and also could not have been harassed, OR (2) evidence that Justin was so incompetent that Blake felt she had no choice but to take over.

But it's actually not good evidence of either. People say all kinds of stuff in communications with friends. None of these were formal work communications. I tend to think the texts with Taylor and Matt Damon, the email to Affleck, etc., as fun as they are to discuss, will have little to no bearing on the case. Most likely won't even be brought in at trial, and those that are will mostly be brought just to show something like "state of mind" not to establish Blake's employment status.

The PGA letter is obviously different, that's actual evidence of Blake's position within the film. But that one actually makes me laugh because it puts both sides in a bind.

The pro-Lively folks want to argue that (1) Justin was incompetent and Blake had no choice but to take over the movie, making the PGA letter truthful and her PGA credit merited, AND (2) that Blake was just an employee of the movie and Justin/Jamey were very powerful and harassed her. See how that's hard to argue?

But the pro-Baldoni folks wind up in a similar bind because they want the opposite. They want to argue that (1) Blake didn't deserve he PGA credit and didn't actually do the stuff she claims to have done in the PGA letter and was not as instrumental in the making of the movie as she claims, AND (2) that she was too powerful and had too much control over the set to have been harassed by Justin and Jamey.

It's just funny. Everyone sucks here, and everyone is a hypocrite!

[Anonymous]

Reminder Blake, Ryan, and Taylor all have zero higher education. They really are this stupid. What we’ve been sold about their abilities and intellect is fake marketing. There is no there there. There dullard schemers with arrested development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the giant document dump is confusing people. People are reading things that Blake, Justin, and others said in texts and emails that are coming out now in the unsealing, and conflating that with arguments being made in court. They are the same thing.

Blake told friends in private texts/emails that she "basically" had to direct the movie because she felt Justin was so incompetent. But that is not the argument she's making in legal filings. At no point in any of her filings is she contending that, actually, she directed the movie. It's just something she said to friends. Now, depending on whose side you're on here, you might view those claims as either (1) evidence that Blake had a lot of power on the movie and therefore was not an employee and also could not have been harassed, OR (2) evidence that Justin was so incompetent that Blake felt she had no choice but to take over.

But it's actually not good evidence of either. People say all kinds of stuff in communications with friends. None of these were formal work communications. I tend to think the texts with Taylor and Matt Damon, the email to Affleck, etc., as fun as they are to discuss, will have little to no bearing on the case. Most likely won't even be brought in at trial, and those that are will mostly be brought just to show something like "state of mind" not to establish Blake's employment status.

The PGA letter is obviously different, that's actual evidence of Blake's position within the film. But that one actually makes me laugh because it puts both sides in a bind.

The pro-Lively folks want to argue that (1) Justin was incompetent and Blake had no choice but to take over the movie, making the PGA letter truthful and her PGA credit merited, AND (2) that Blake was just an employee of the movie and Justin/Jamey were very powerful and harassed her. See how that's hard to argue?

But the pro-Baldoni folks wind up in a similar bind because they want the opposite. They want to argue that (1) Blake didn't deserve he PGA credit and didn't actually do the stuff she claims to have done in the PGA letter and was not as instrumental in the making of the movie as she claims, AND (2) that she was too powerful and had too much control over the set to have been harassed by Justin and Jamey.

It's just funny. Everyone sucks here, and everyone is a hypocrite!

Strongly disagree with this. Many of us said from the beginning that Blake wanted to control the move and buy the rights to the sequel. She didn’t control the movie because she was superior in directing skill, she controlled the movie because she manipulated cast, Sony, WF, Hoover and her famous friends until she was able to do so. Why did we think this? Because she can’t even walk a red carpet without ordering people around. Now we’ve seen the many texts, emails, depositions, etc . .

Blake doesn’t have many real talents but she is a master manipulator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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."

Good point. Always call that poster on her bs because there is a lot of it in her five paragraph posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Still waiting on this.