Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how many people have negative stories to share about Blake Lively. I’m glad that they are coming forward.

And almost always in the Daily Mail!

That particular story is actually real. I mean, they reported on a real person who was a real AD who actually worked with Lively on a real film. And now she’s getting tons of hate online from Lively supporters. People need to chill the F out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

He called him Baloney. Classy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That includes her real-life leading man Penn Badgley, although she admits she was unhappy when he was cast on the series. “At first I was so upset that they hired him,” she says. “I actually poisoned the whole cast against him. But then they noticed that he wasn’t a jerk and was actually a really nice, charming person. Almost immediately I realized that too, but it took me about a week to admit it.”

- Blake Lively poisoning casts against her victims since 2020

https://people.com/celebrity/blake-lively-doesnt-have-the-willpower-to-diet/

She's a real piece of work and has been for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

DP and I'm on a case now where we are deliberately filing small-ish motions involving discovery issues that we know very well we might lose but the purpose of that is to educate the judge and to develop our "story" with the judge that will be important for trial. So the strategy you're describing above isn't crazy to me -- sure, winning the motions might be nice, but it's not like a basketball game where all the points are added up at the end and whoever wins the most motions wins the trial. You certainly don't want to file a bunch of frivolous motions and annoy the judge by wasting his time. But losing a few doesn't mean you're losing the case, especially if you are specifically using them to build a narrative.

But, different lawyers will have different strategies. Previously I hadn't really been on cases where the attorney in charge took such a holistic view of the case and its attendant motions. So I understand someone thinking in terms of a basketball game, but (to use a trope) it's really more like chess where you can sacrifice some pawns to take out a queen etc. Not absolutely clear to me that Lively's attorney is doing this, but I have worked with some Boies attorneys and they* have generally been extremely good at what they do.

* including the one with sexual harassment problems who was an incredible attorney but perhaps not the best human being.

That’s a strange approach. Nearly all judges will lose patience with attorneys who file a bunch of motions they won’t win. There are other ways to “educate” the judge about your case.

No there really are not. judge won’t look at your case until motions are filed. The gag order motion got Lively what she wanted.

There is not a need to educate the judge about your case. If a dispositive motion is filed or it goes to trial, that’s when they learn about the case. No judge wants to receive a bunch of small “motions” that the moving party is unlikely to win. I find it hard to believe any real attorney would believe this, and I am a different poster than the one who asked how you can be a working lawyer and post here so frequently.

you probably do exceedingly corporate cases that never actually go to trial. Sexual harassment cases and high profile cases are totally different.

Nope, as I said early, litigated for more than 20 years, some as a criminal prosecutor. It’s a bad strategy.[/quote

Completely new poster who is not a lawyer. I wish the person that posts weird responses over and over like "you probably went to Yale" and "you probably do corporate law" (like you are responding to) would shut up. We heard their opinion over and over ago and it is obvious they have a bias against people who went to top law schools or are big law - they are insecure and weirdly obsessed. I'm done with their off subject comments (about a poster's background) and will be reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

Anyone know how these contracts are structured? Can either parry terminate for any reason?

Pretty much, yes. Agents drop clients all the time. There's a reason Baldoni hasn't tried to sue WME.

I'll note that if this feud were between clients that WME valued more equally, they might have tried to forge a truce. Even hired their own mediators or something. The fight isn't helping anyone book work or promote projects. But Baldoni offered them very little upside -- he barely acts and because is directing projects are mostly through Wayfarer, there's not much for WME to do there. It was probably a very easy decision for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can people really not tell that Blake Lively is a rotten soul? For those of us who have the gift/curse of being able to discern it, she’s always been one of the most obvious celebrities. I nearly vomited the first time I saw her onscreen.

+1. Both her and Ryan have always had dark, mean spirited, sociopathic energy. Same energy Ellen gave off; phonies who are secretly rotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That includes her real-life leading man Penn Badgley, although she admits she was unhappy when he was cast on the series. “At first I was so upset that they hired him,” she says. “I actually poisoned the whole cast against him. But then they noticed that he wasn’t a jerk and was actually a really nice, charming person. Almost immediately I realized that too, but it took me about a week to admit it.”

- Blake Lively poisoning casts against her victims since 2020

https://people.com/celebrity/blake-lively-doesnt-have-the-willpower-to-diet/

What would give a talentless teen like her so much arrogance? Were her parents THAT connected or even in her teens was she already “linked” to powerful men?

[Anonymous]

I don’t know. There’s so much vitriol against her (which I admit I’m not following closely), that I kind of feel bad for her, at this point. It’s a bit OTT - people are delighting in her downfall. It’s hard to know if those first-hand accounts are true.

[Anonymous]

Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

lol!!!! Remember the poster insisting this was not a fishing expedition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

Anyone know how these contracts are structured? Can either parry terminate for any reason?

Pretty much, yes. Agents drop clients all the time. There's a reason Baldoni hasn't tried to sue WME.

I'll note that if this feud were between clients that WME valued more equally, they might have tried to forge a truce. Even hired their own mediators or something. The fight isn't helping anyone book work or promote projects. But Baldoni offered them very little upside -- he barely acts and because is directing projects are mostly through Wayfarer, there's not much for WME to do there. It was probably a very easy decision for them.

I suppose that a talent agent may drop a client when there's so much bad publicity that getting work seems untenable. Sometimes, that bad publicity may be unfair, but then his cause of action is probably defamation against the entities he believes defamed him, so I guess his strategy of during them and not WME is the right one. Maybe a tortious interference in a contract claim against Lively and Reynolds too, if they specifically asked WME to drop him. And Reynolds allegedly called him a sexual predator; don't know if there's any specific allegation of what he said, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know. There’s so much vitriol against her (which I admit I’m not following closely), that I kind of feel bad for her, at this point. It’s a bit OTT - people are delighting in her downfall. It’s hard to know if those first-hand accounts are true.

I never really disliked Blake, I thought she was really shallow and vapid, but actually being BFFs with Taylor lifted her up in my eyes and I thought she must be cooler in real life.

But reading this lawsuit, she is downright diabolical. Getting two female ADs fired in the first couple weeks of filming, and then threatening to walk every time she didn’t get her way, like actually having lawyers compose emails saying she was going to walk off the movie…..I’ve never seen a display of such horrible behavior in an adult. I find it really disturbing and I think there’s something wrong with her. I don’t feel sorry for her, but I do hope she gets the help she needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

lol!!!! Remember the poster insisting this was not a fishing expedition?

I was that poster. That discussion was in reference to asking Jed Wallace for documents regarding work he did for Baldoni. That's normal discovery. What PP above describes is a fishing expedition, for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

Is there a source? All the article I am finding are from 1 day ago and say Lively is issuing the subpoenas. Can't find information on Freedman's motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

Is there a source? All the article I am finding are from 1 day ago and say Lively is issuing the subpoenas. Can't find information on Freedman's motion.

It was filed this afternoon, a lawyer who follows the docket read the motion on TikTok. If you had pacer access, you could check, I guess.