Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

BL, RR, and their legal team are completely desperate. As I have said multiple times in this thread, they have nothing. Blake lied, they never expected JB to fight back, and now they are scrambling.

Time to make a huge settlement offer Blake!

[Anonymous]

BL needs to settle - the comments all over social media are slaughtering her. She went too far.

[Anonymous]

At this point she can drop her case but she's now a defendant in other cases so she's stuck with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

[Anonymous]

1:22 PM PT -- Bryan Freedman tells TMZ, "Mr. Ari Emanuel is notably one of the best agents, and clearly the most loyal, in Hollywood. As I understand it, Justin hasn’t been called ‘Bologna’ since the fifth grade. Perhaps Ari’s perspective would be different if they had ever met in the half decade they were clients of his agency."

LOL!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No clue but clearly she hasn’t outgrown her teen behavior. She just kept on being the bully that she is into adulthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

I guess she also needs to show she didn’t plot to take over his movie, which also doesn’t seem like it would come from these records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

[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.

lol @ feeling bad for a couple of filthy rich sociopath scumbags who casually felt like destroying the life of some innocent man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Accusing someone of SH is serious business. If she bent the truth, people have a right to be upset. Most of us read the allegations and were on her side. After seeing Baldoni’s receipts almost the majority of us flipped and are now Team Justin. We all feel manipulated by her. If she had something, some tangible evidence, I think she would have revealed it by now.

+1. Although I was never on her side. It was always apparent, to me, this was a fake cooked up scheme from the very get go by her and her creepy money-grubbing husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

Dp but then, if they were requesting information relating to his conversations with those individuals, named in her complaint, that would be reasonable and fine. I posted a list of persons whose information they are requesting. They are requesting all of their records going back years, also. There is barely any attempt to even distinguish what they are seeking from whom. Comes off as fishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol @ feeling bad for a couple of filthy rich sociopath scumbags who casually felt like destroying the life of some innocent man.

Is this person actually accusing the MULTIPLE PEOPLE with horrible stories about Blake Lively of being liars? There is actual video proof of some of these interactions. Educate yourself.

[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.

Can't wait to see her "dragon" Taylor Swift's phone records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

I don’t see how either of those two SH allegations, or her contract negotiations, would be proven by any of the requested phone records. It’s not just the time period—it’s what would be available that they actually need.