Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I wonder if/when we'll see additional footage from the set, and if so how it might impact things.

Genuinely no agenda with this comment. It just dawned on me that there must be hours and hours of footage from this movie, and we've seen just one 12 minute clip. I would be interested to see others, to see Baldoni interacting with other cast, etc. One thing very different about this case as opposed to an SH case in another sort of workplace is the fact of the film. I want more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if/when we'll see additional footage from the set, and if so how it might impact things.

Genuinely no agenda with this comment. It just dawned on me that there must be hours and hours of footage from this movie, and we've seen just one 12 minute clip. I would be interested to see others, to see Baldoni interacting with other cast, etc. One thing very different about this case as opposed to an SH case in another sort of workplace is the fact of the film. I want more!

It would be interesting if Justin’s cut were to be released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

I’ll add that a good legal team likely wouldn’t have brought this complaint at all, at least without significantly more investigation. And their client would have been better off for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if/when we'll see additional footage from the set, and if so how it might impact things.

Genuinely no agenda with this comment. It just dawned on me that there must be hours and hours of footage from this movie, and we've seen just one 12 minute clip. I would be interested to see others, to see Baldoni interacting with other cast, etc. One thing very different about this case as opposed to an SH case in another sort of workplace is the fact of the film. I want more!

It would be interesting if Justin’s cut were to be released.

Agree that would be interesting. I'd want someone (not me) to do a side by side comparison on the differences.

But I also want the behind the scenes stuff, the outtakes, all the stuff from the cutting room floor. I think it would interesting to see more of what it was like on the set and the dynamics among the cast and crew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if/when we'll see additional footage from the set, and if so how it might impact things.

Genuinely no agenda with this comment. It just dawned on me that there must be hours and hours of footage from this movie, and we've seen just one 12 minute clip. I would be interested to see others, to see Baldoni interacting with other cast, etc. One thing very different about this case as opposed to an SH case in another sort of workplace is the fact of the film. I want more!

It would be interesting if Justin’s cut were to be released.

I'm much more interested in Justin's cut of the backstage stuff than the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

I’ll add that a good legal team likely wouldn’t have brought this complaint at all, at least without significantly more investigation. And their client would have been better off for it.

Mmm hmm. They are being paid by the hour! they want her and her husband’s money. but yeah sure, Cravath never takes cases for money. They are actually a non-profit, that is how high tier they are. No filthy lucre for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how rooting for a celeb in a tawdry juicy tabloidesque situation also must extend to their law firm, all legal strategies and motions, etc.

Well, one side doing a better job with the mundane things like pleadings is what is driving public opinion in the same direction, so it’s hardly surprising.

you sound like a clueless Yale law grad who thinks that being a lawyer is like being something that actually is difficult like physics or brain surgery. Sorry babe most of the practice of law is rote, particularly here where there are not really any difficult or novel questions of law. This case entirely depends on Lively’s lawyers persuading the finder of fact that Baldoni’s actions were retaliatory. It takes a brawler to do that, not the “top tier” white shoe firm.

The pleadings are fine. Lively’s case sucks and the pleadings cannot make up for that. Not the lawyer’s fault! Seeing the live footage of the dance scene was probably an unpleasant surprise for her lawyers but par for the course in these types of lawyers. If anything an even “lower tier” firm would have been more skeptical of Lively.

Do you work for them or something? Literally every move they have made so far has not worked out well, including the attempt to get a gag order, and prohibit Freedman from personally taking Lively's deposition. They can't even get an extension granted on their terms. But sure, the problem is that I'm a snob, and not that they are bad at strategy (and their Complaint is pretty mediocre too). Sometimes part of the job is telling a client they don't really have a case.

Do you think there was some kind of secret high-tier legal argument they could have made to win the gag order? Nope. Lively definitely has a good retaliation case, there’s not really a question about that.

A good legal team would never have brought that motion, that’s the point. And I disagree that the retaliation claim is strong.

yeah that’s because you’re a Yale law grad who has never set foot in a courtroom, much less done an actual sexual harassment case. If you had, you would know that Lively’s retaliation claim is quite viable. And the purpose of the motion was to get before the judge to create a narrative of Lively being bullied, and to make Baldoni back off the press (which he has done).

I did not go to Yale although I did go to an Ivy League law school. I've also been a practicing litigator for more than two decades, including a stint doing criminal prosecutions.

Again, the fact that the case is going poorly for them is partially a reflection of the quality of the legal team. Sorry if that is you, otherwise I have no clue why you continue to argue about this. The fact that the public opinion is so strongly against Blake is direct proof that the case is not going well. As is the judge's refusal to grant a simple request for extension.

And now, I am done arguing over this with you. If you think her legal team is doing well and having a lot of success, no point in attempting to reason with you.

[Anonymous]

When Blake had that meeting to discuss the 17 points (95 theses lol) and the rider she wanted before she returned to set after the strike, was she represented by the same law firm? I give them more leeway if they were brought in later and found her claims credible as she described them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Blake had that meeting to discuss the 17 points (95 theses lol) and the rider she wanted before she returned to set after the strike, was she represented by the same law firm? I give them more leeway if they were brought in later and found her claims credible as she described them.

Maybe, but dropping that footnote in the Complaint about "general practice" for partial nudity sends the signal that what she was actually wearing in the scene was not problematic. If they knew she was overstating that claim, they probably should have looked more closely at everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Blake had that meeting to discuss the 17 points (95 theses lol) and the rider she wanted before she returned to set after the strike, was she represented by the same law firm? I give them more leeway if they were brought in later and found her claims credible as she described them.

Maybe, but dropping that footnote in the Complaint about "general practice" for partial nudity sends the signal that what she was actually wearing in the scene was not problematic. If they knew she was overstating that claim, they probably should have looked more closely at everything else.

PP and that's fair (and definitely don't want to get into "thin strip of fabric" debate!). But I'm thinking more along the lines of the dance scene. If they knew the facts as they were shown in Baldoni's video, then writing that allegation was outright fraud. I'm sort of assuming they were going off her narrative with nothing to contradict it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Blake had that meeting to discuss the 17 points (95 theses lol) and the rider she wanted before she returned to set after the strike, was she represented by the same law firm? I give them more leeway if they were brought in later and found her claims credible as she described them.

Maybe, but dropping that footnote in the Complaint about "general practice" for partial nudity sends the signal that what she was actually wearing in the scene was not problematic. If they knew she was overstating that claim, they probably should have looked more closely at everything else.

The point of that footnote was to illustrate what they were trying to pressure her into, not what she actually wore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Blake had that meeting to discuss the 17 points (95 theses lol) and the rider she wanted before she returned to set after the strike, was she represented by the same law firm? I give them more leeway if they were brought in later and found her claims credible as she described them.

Maybe, but dropping that footnote in the Complaint about "general practice" for partial nudity sends the signal that what she was actually wearing in the scene was not problematic. If they knew she was overstating that claim, they probably should have looked more closely at everything else.

PP and that's fair (and definitely don't want to get into "thin strip of fabric" debate!). But I'm thinking more along the lines of the dance scene. If they knew the facts as they were shown in Baldoni's video, then writing that allegation was outright fraud. I'm sort of assuming they were going off her narrative with nothing to contradict it.

it’s not fraud. It just shows that the interpretation is extremely subjective - ie an interpretation of facts. Yes they probably were NOT happy when they saw it. But overheated allegations that are one-sided are actually the nature of sexual harassment complaints. Blake will say the video clearly shows she is uneasy and trying to fend him off and that leaning in for the kiss was not planned. The truth is her firm is not low-tier enough because if it was a brawler firm it would know quite well what the score is. The idea that a classier firm would have handled it better is a joke.