Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why would she settle this early in the lawsuit? She has nothing to lose and will contuine.

Of course she has more things to lose, starting with even more damage to her reputation.

Baldoni’s rock bottom was after the NYT article; he had nowhere to go but up. Lively’s rock bottom is probably now. I think her best bet is to try to take Baldoni down with her at this point. If he’s really a nice guy, that will be hard to do. If he’s a dirtbag, then they both end up looking bad, but maybe she looks slightly less terrible.

She hasn’t hit rock bottom yet.

[Anonymous]

I really don’t understand why Blake’s lawyers are so bad at lawyering. It’s almost comical at this point.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are toast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are thousands of Blake Livelys out there in the real world, all around the same age. Surely you have met one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

Blake Lively said the reason she’s married to Ryan Reynolds is so she can be friends with his mom. She then goes on to elaborate how important ‘female friendships’ are. They are a bunch of grifters. And besides who wants to be friends with their MIL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think Lively will get everything, but Baldoni has very much opened himself up to broad discovery by including so many texts and emails in his complaint. This is how litigation works. Once one side has introduced exchanges like that as relevant, you have to be able to produce the full exchange. Lively's complaint was more narrowly focused than Baldoni's, and Baldoni's legal team made a big deal about putting it all out there. So this was somewhat inevitable, even though it will wind up getting narrowed and walked back by the magistrate judge.

Lively's team can certainly request the full contextualized versions of the text chains he cites. And they should. That is not the same as all records going back 3 years for every person on their list.

I finally actually saw the subpoenas and this isn't accurate. They aren't even asking for 2.5 years.

For the Wayfarer entities and Jennifer Abel, they ask for records dating back to Dec. 1, 2022, which was the month that Lively came on board with the production.

For Melissa Nathan and the TAG entities, they as for production dating from July, 2024, when Nathan was hired by Baldoni.

Both of those seem reasonable to me, assuming the requests will be circumscribed to excluded privileged and irrelevant communications. I would actually assume that the request would be limited to communications between the identified parties. So they wouldn't include every communication -- not records of people communicating with their spouses or their Bumble dates or their doctor's office or their kid's school. But I could see them asking for all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods. The Nathan/TAG request is particularly relevant.

The wild card is that they ask for records for Jed Wallace dating back to December 2022. This part looks like a "fishing expedition" to me and I think reflects the degree to which they truly do not know when Wallace came on board or exactly how he's involved. I would expect Wallace to fight that quite hard and for Lively's team to have to show relevance. I guess we'll see what they show in their amended complaint. Right now I don't think they have anywhere close to enough to ask for that from Wallace.

Ok, 2.5 vs 3 years, you got me, but that doesn't go to the substance of what I said.

The bolded part, a litigator can clarify, but that's not how it's supposed to work. The one issuing the subpoena is supposed to identify relevant, nonprivileged material they are requesting, not request everything (and how are Verizon, et al, supposed to know what is relevant or privileged?).

If they wanted " all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods" that's fine and I would support that, but they should have asked for that.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I agree the subpoenas are over broad.

Usually discovery requests like this get adjudicated by a magistrate judge. I would assume they will be circumscribed in the way I described above. I don't think Lively is getting ALL their communications, and I don't think Lively's team thinks they are getting that. Her lawyers aren't rubes. I assume they've framed it broadly and vaguely knowing it can only be walked back, not expanded. So they start with a big net knowing it will be chipped away at.

My main point was that it's not 3 years or even 2.5, which I've seen reported a lot of places. It's only a little over 2 years for some of the parties and the date is linked to the date Lively agreed to join the production. And for the Nathan/TAG entities it's much shorter than that, only to July 2024, when they were hired.

When I first read reports of the subpoenas they sounded insane to me but now I get what they are going for and understand the strategy at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

What about her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think Lively will get everything, but Baldoni has very much opened himself up to broad discovery by including so many texts and emails in his complaint. This is how litigation works. Once one side has introduced exchanges like that as relevant, you have to be able to produce the full exchange. Lively's complaint was more narrowly focused than Baldoni's, and Baldoni's legal team made a big deal about putting it all out there. So this was somewhat inevitable, even though it will wind up getting narrowed and walked back by the magistrate judge.

Lively's team can certainly request the full contextualized versions of the text chains he cites. And they should. That is not the same as all records going back 3 years for every person on their list.

I finally actually saw the subpoenas and this isn't accurate. They aren't even asking for 2.5 years.

For the Wayfarer entities and Jennifer Abel, they ask for records dating back to Dec. 1, 2022, which was the month that Lively came on board with the production.

For Melissa Nathan and the TAG entities, they as for production dating from July, 2024, when Nathan was hired by Baldoni.

Both of those seem reasonable to me, assuming the requests will be circumscribed to excluded privileged and irrelevant communications. I would actually assume that the request would be limited to communications between the identified parties. So they wouldn't include every communication -- not records of people communicating with their spouses or their Bumble dates or their doctor's office or their kid's school. But I could see them asking for all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods. The Nathan/TAG request is particularly relevant.

The wild card is that they ask for records for Jed Wallace dating back to December 2022. This part looks like a "fishing expedition" to me and I think reflects the degree to which they truly do not know when Wallace came on board or exactly how he's involved. I would expect Wallace to fight that quite hard and for Lively's team to have to show relevance. I guess we'll see what they show in their amended complaint. Right now I don't think they have anywhere close to enough to ask for that from Wallace.

Ok, 2.5 vs 3 years, you got me, but that doesn't go to the substance of what I said.

The bolded part, a litigator can clarify, but that's not how it's supposed to work. The one issuing the subpoena is supposed to identify relevant, nonprivileged material they are requesting, not request everything (and how are Verizon, et al, supposed to know what is relevant or privileged?).

If they wanted " all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods" that's fine and I would support that, but they should have asked for that.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I agree the subpoenas are over broad.

Usually discovery requests like this get adjudicated by a magistrate judge. I would assume they will be circumscribed in the way I described above. I don't think Lively is getting ALL their communications, and I don't think Lively's team thinks they are getting that. Her lawyers aren't rubes. I assume they've framed it broadly and vaguely knowing it can only be walked back, not expanded. So they start with a big net knowing it will be chipped away at.

My main point was that it's not 3 years or even 2.5, which I've seen reported a lot of places. It's only a little over 2 years for some of the parties and the date is linked to the date Lively agreed to join the production. And for the Nathan/TAG entities it's much shorter than that, only to July 2024, when they were hired.

When I first read reports of the subpoenas they sounded insane to me but now I get what they are going for and understand the strategy at least.

That isn’t how discovery works. You don’t throw out requests that are incredibly unacceptable thinking the Court will narrow them for you. The judge already has demonstrated he has no patience for lively’s lawyers and these totally unacceptable subpoenas are only going to make things worse. They are just so bad at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

What about her?

Let’s just say she seems to be overly involved in her adult son’s life. Why would she need to interview the actor who played Atlas? It’s strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

What about her?

Let’s just say she seems to be overly involved in her adult son’s life. Why would she need to interview the actor who played Atlas? It’s strange.

Reynolds and his mother had no business getting involved with the film in any way. Why were they both interviewing actors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

What about her?

Let’s just say she seems to be overly involved in her adult son’s life. Why would she need to interview the actor who played Atlas? It’s strange.

Well, that's not as juicy as I was hoping.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively’s sister was also in the film. This entire film was such a sh!tshow of nepotism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

Blake Lively said the reason she’s married to Ryan Reynolds is so she can be friends with his mom. She then goes on to elaborate how important ‘female friendships’ are. They are a bunch of grifters. And besides who wants to be friends with their MIL?

I am confused as to why wanting to be friends with your MIL is a bad thing. That sounds like a positive family dynamic.

Also didn't Ryan Reynold's dad have Parkinson's for like 30 years and hasn't he and his mom been very public about raising money/awareness regarding the disease and also talking about families of Parkinson's patients need support because it can be so hard? It sounds like his mom wound up raising four kids while also caretaking for her husband for decades.

It's weird to go after his family given that history.