Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She can say that or think that but that's not what her pleadings say. It wouldn't have sounded as explosive to say she felt uneasy during a romantic scene and there was an unscripted kiss as it did to say he started nuzzling her and telling her she smelled good in a scene that didn't even involve talking (when she was the one advocating for talking). I know I was disgusted by him when I first read that, and then shocked and disgusted at her seeing the full context. If the lawyer wrote those pleadings having seen that video, they should be sanctioned (but I am assuming they were going off her description).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You obviously have some insecurities you keep projecting onto this topic. Many of the top firms have people who didn't go to Ivies, particularly on the plaintiff's side.

[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.

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

Then why did they make the allegation about what she wearing during the scene? Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A plaintiff can't make up allegations, regardless of the cause of action.

[Anonymous]

Bryan Freedman all day every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You obviously have some insecurities you keep projecting onto this topic. Many of the top firms have people who didn't go to Ivies, particularly on the plaintiff's side.

top firms doing individual plaintiff work in employment cases is actually very rare. Generally done as an add-on as here (to keep a business client happy). you’ll never guess where I went to law school!

[Anonymous]

There will be no settling as of now.

https://people.com/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-reject-mediation-court-battle-11679410

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She can say that or think that but that's not what her pleadings say. It wouldn't have sounded as explosive to say she felt uneasy during a romantic scene and there was an unscripted kiss as it did to say he started nuzzling her and telling her she smelled good in a scene that didn't even involve talking (when she was the one advocating for talking). I know I was disgusted by him when I first read that, and then shocked and disgusted at her seeing the full context. If the lawyer wrote those pleadings having seen that video, they should be sanctioned (but I am assuming they were going off her description).

I’m sure they were not happy when they saw the footage, that’s for sure. But this kind of stuff happens with frequency in these types of cases. But the idea that it’s because her lawyers are not elite enough is just silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You obviously have some insecurities you keep projecting onto this topic. Many of the top firms have people who didn't go to Ivies, particularly on the plaintiff's side.

top firms doing individual plaintiff work in employment cases is actually very rare. Generally done as an add-on as here (to keep a business client happy). you’ll never guess where I went to law school!

How are you defining top firm? I am defining it as firms known for excellent work and winning cases. You apparently have a definition that excludes all plaintiff side firms. Again, I think you are taking this strangely personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She can say that or think that but that's not what her pleadings say. It wouldn't have sounded as explosive to say she felt uneasy during a romantic scene and there was an unscripted kiss as it did to say he started nuzzling her and telling her she smelled good in a scene that didn't even involve talking (when she was the one advocating for talking). I know I was disgusted by him when I first read that, and then shocked and disgusted at her seeing the full context. If the lawyer wrote those pleadings having seen that video, they should be sanctioned (but I am assuming they were going off her description).

I’m sure they were not happy when they saw the footage, that’s for sure. But this kind of stuff happens with frequency in these types of cases. But the idea that it’s because her lawyers are not elite enough is just silly.

Nobody said elite. But it is true they are known as a mid tier firm and they are doing mediocre work here. Even yesterday’s press release about having receipts was cringeworthy when all they are doing is serving requests for discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bryan Freedman all day every day.

He, in comparison, has been truly impressive. Started turning the tide the first time he got in front of a camera and then backed it up with an excellent complaint. The website with the time line was genius as was suing the Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no settling as of now.

https://people.com/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-reject-mediation-court-battle-11679410

Welp, I was the poster yesterday saying it was too early for a mediation. Usually going through discovery makes the parties more aware of the weaknesses of their case, or a good mediator can point them out with the assistance of the other party’s counsel. Still plenty of time to settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is spot on and it's a relief to see a take like this on here, I thought I was going crazy. I also think people have misinterpreted the line from her complaint about how they weren't recording sound. Freedman's response was all "ohoho she thought they didn't record sound so she could lie, but jokes on her" and a lot of people have parroted that. But the point in saying the scene was recorded without sound was to emphasize that they were not saying lines or speaking to one another in character (which they weren't), thus why Lively found his "you smell good" comment to cross a line. I do think her version of events is exaggerated (her complaint even quotes him as saying "you smell so good" and he doesn't say the "so" in the clip which changes the tone slightly, though I believe she remembered it that way and was not trying to be intentionally misleading). But it's not false. It's just open to multiple interpretations.

I also assume that Freedman released the bit of footage that was most advantageous to their case, which is one reason that I didn't read as much into that scene as others seem to, even though I agree it doesn't really help her case. Her complaint mentions scenes where she felt Baldoni crossed a line in doing unscripted intimacy, in particularly the scene where she alleges he bit and sucked her lip and insisted on multiple takes to improvise it over and over. Baldoni's defense to this is that Lively improvised kisses in another scene. I think it's interesting that they chose not to release that footage, which obviously they have. Perhaps it backs up Baldoni's side and there's a reason that they didn't release it. But I tend to think what they've released is one of the more ambiguous incidents from the set and that it's likely he did other things on set that would give people more pause. But we'll see. Maybe they also have footage of Lively being a nightmare on set (though, again, if they had it, I am shocked it hasn't already been leaked).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what else comes out. I agree with PP that while the perception might be that Baldoni is running away with it, the reality is more mixed and Lively's lawyers have done a perfectly fine job on the lawyering so far, if not on the PR game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bryan Freedman all day every day.

He, in comparison, has been truly impressive. Started turning the tide the first time he got in front of a camera and then backed it up with an excellent complaint. The website with the time line was genius as was suing the Times.

He is worth every penny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is spot on and it's a relief to see a take like this on here, I thought I was going crazy. I also think people have misinterpreted the line from her complaint about how they weren't recording sound. Freedman's response was all "ohoho she thought they didn't record sound so she could lie, but jokes on her" and a lot of people have parroted that. But the point in saying the scene was recorded without sound was to emphasize that they were not saying lines or speaking to one another in character (which they weren't), thus why Lively found his "you smell good" comment to cross a line. I do think her version of events is exaggerated (her complaint even quotes him as saying "you smell so good" and he doesn't say the "so" in the clip which changes the tone slightly, though I believe she remembered it that way and was not trying to be intentionally misleading). But it's not false. It's just open to multiple interpretations.

I also assume that Freedman released the bit of footage that was most advantageous to their case, which is one reason that I didn't read as much into that scene as others seem to, even though I agree it doesn't really help her case. Her complaint mentions scenes where she felt Baldoni crossed a line in doing unscripted intimacy, in particularly the scene where she alleges he bit and sucked her lip and insisted on multiple takes to improvise it over and over. Baldoni's defense to this is that Lively improvised kisses in another scene. I think it's interesting that they chose not to release that footage, which obviously they have. Perhaps it backs up Baldoni's side and there's a reason that they didn't release it. But I tend to think what they've released is one of the more ambiguous incidents from the set and that it's likely he did other things on set that would give people more pause. But we'll see. Maybe they also have footage of Lively being a nightmare on set (though, again, if they had it, I am shocked it hasn't already been leaked).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what else comes out. I agree with PP that while the perception might be that Baldoni is running away with it, the reality is more mixed and Lively's lawyers have done a perfectly fine job on the lawyering so far, if not on the PR game.

Perfectly fine, losing both the pr world and all three requests they have made to the Court.