Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

Oh didn’t you know that everyone that had a bad experience with BL is lying???!!!

I'm not sure it matters?

I was listening to the Las Culturistas podcast this week (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers) and they made a point that has stuck with me.

It's not illegal to be hard to work with. It might annoy people but it's not illegal. It's not illegal to be rude, to be overly involved with a film production as an actor, to say tone deaf things in interviews or during promotion of a film. These things might make me dislike Blake Lively but they are not (to borrow a favorite term from another poster in this thread) actionable.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are actionable. Lively hasn't proved her case yet but that's what the court case is for. If she can't prove it, sucks for her and Baldoni will be vindicated. If she can, well, he shouldn't have done that and deserves consequences.

I don't understand the point of constantly digging up random people saying "Blake Lively was not nice to me on this film set this one time." Okay, I believe it. She seems like the sort to be entitled and demanding. But I don't understand what it has to do with this case? People can be rude and entitled and still be sexually harassed. One thing doesn't really have a lot to do with the other, IME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

So? Are you accusing him of lying about his perineal experience with Blake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

So? Are you accusing him of lying about his perineal experience with Blake?

Perineal should be personal but it really fits here considering Ryan Reynolds disgusting texts to Justin Baldoni about his perineum lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

So? Are you accusing him of lying about his perineal experience with Blake?

Maybe? Who cares if he found her rude on a set when he worked with her like 10 years ago. He references going to see her in The Shallows after working with her (to "cheer on the shark" lol). That movie came out in 2016.

He's not even alleging she did anything except was unpleasant to work with. Ok? What does that have to do with literally anything here? Lots of people are unpleasant to work with. Who cares? No one has argued that she's a saint and that no one has ever had a negative experience working with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

So? Are you accusing him of lying about his perineal experience with Blake?

Maybe? Who cares if he found her rude on a set when he worked with her like 10 years ago. He references going to see her in The Shallows after working with her (to "cheer on the shark" lol). That movie came out in 2016.

He's not even alleging she did anything except was unpleasant to work with. Ok? What does that have to do with literally anything here? Lots of people are unpleasant to work with. Who cares? No one has argued that she's a saint and that no one has ever had a negative experience working with her.

The whole thread is about Blake lively and how she treated JB, JH, the AD, etc like trash and lied about being sexually harassed. It’s relevant to the thread. I don’t know how you can’t understand something as simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

Oh didn’t you know that everyone that had a bad experience with BL is lying???!!!

I'm not sure it matters?

I was listening to the Las Culturistas podcast this week (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers) and they made a point that has stuck with me.

It's not illegal to be hard to work with. It might annoy people but it's not illegal. It's not illegal to be rude, to be overly involved with a film production as an actor, to say tone deaf things in interviews or during promotion of a film. These things might make me dislike Blake Lively but they are not (to borrow a favorite term from another poster in this thread) actionable.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are actionable. Lively hasn't proved her case yet but that's what the court case is for. If she can't prove it, sucks for her and Baldoni will be vindicated. If she can, well, he shouldn't have done that and deserves consequences.

I don't understand the point of constantly digging up random people saying "Blake Lively was not nice to me on this film set this one time." Okay, I believe it. She seems like the sort to be entitled and demanding. But I don't understand what it has to do with this case? People can be rude and entitled and still be sexually harassed. One thing doesn't really have a lot to do with the other, IME.

Absolutely, one can be a horrid human being and still be a victim of SH/A. However, I do not believe Blake Lively is a victim here based on the lack of evidence supporting a SH/A claim. The negative press surrounding her is simply schadenfreude at seeing a quintessential mean girl be put in her place. It feels good.

[Anonymous]

This thread is just sort of weird because it doubles as a celebrity gossip thread and a thread about the court case. So you have lots of people posting general negative stories on Blake being a diva or their feelings that Baldoni is creepy and I sort of want to say "so what? That doesn't mean they don't have a case" but my understanding is Jeff only wanted posts reported if they are attacking other posters or blatantly misogynistic or trollish, so I try to report those, and just scroll on by the other posts that don't interest me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

This confirms that they are asking for every single text, phone call, etc. . .for each Wayfarer defendant from December 1, 2022 to present, exactly how described in Freedman’s motion. Exactly the fishing expedition several of us have identified.

I see what the other person was talking about now. 2022 is when when Blake was in talks to sign on board so that timeline makes sense. Blake is saying justin was okay with collaboration while the Wayfarer is saying that's not true. Blake doesn't have to prove only the SH but has to prove Justin's claims are false. I am going back to my original opinion. She will most likely have to tailor it more but i don't think those is outrageous asks.

DP. It's still outrageous, IMO. It would be one thing if they were asking for all logs for communications between all those Wayfarer defendants since December 2022. That's still *very* broad, but you could at least sort of argue that those would be relevant to the film and the case. That would probably be cut down, but I can sort of understand that.

What they are asking for is ALL communications and ALL geolocation data from EACH of those people individually, meaning, eg, where they spent their time during the strike when no filming was going on; every single place they've gone since December 2022; every communication they had with ANYONE (their family, their kids' school, their religious and political affiliates). That is a fishing expedition and no, you don't just ask for all that and expect Verizon and T-Mobile to somehow figure out which of those are relevant or privileged.

agree this is nuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

So? Are you accusing him of lying about his perineal experience with Blake?

Maybe? Who cares if he found her rude on a set when he worked with her like 10 years ago. He references going to see her in The Shallows after working with her (to "cheer on the shark" lol). That movie came out in 2016.

He's not even alleging she did anything except was unpleasant to work with. Ok? What does that have to do with literally anything here? Lots of people are unpleasant to work with. Who cares? No one has argued that she's a saint and that no one has ever had a negative experience working with her.

Maybe we can use this experience as a cautionary tale for any other entitled mean girls to dare try to accuse someone of SH/A or anything when it’s clearly all a bunch of BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is just sort of weird because it doubles as a celebrity gossip thread and a thread about the court case. So you have lots of people posting general negative stories on Blake being a diva or their feelings that Baldoni is creepy and I sort of want to say "so what? That doesn't mean they don't have a case" but my understanding is Jeff only wanted posts reported if they are attacking other posters or blatantly misogynistic or trollish, so I try to report those, and just scroll on by the other posts that don't interest me.

okay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

Oh didn’t you know that everyone that had a bad experience with BL is lying???!!!

I'm not sure it matters?

I was listening to the Las Culturistas podcast this week (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers) and they made a point that has stuck with me.

It's not illegal to be hard to work with. It might annoy people but it's not illegal. It's not illegal to be rude, to be overly involved with a film production as an actor, to say tone deaf things in interviews or during promotion of a film. These things might make me dislike Blake Lively but they are not (to borrow a favorite term from another poster in this thread) actionable.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are actionable. Lively hasn't proved her case yet but that's what the court case is for. If she can't prove it, sucks for her and Baldoni will be vindicated. If she can, well, he shouldn't have done that and deserves consequences.

I don't understand the point of constantly digging up random people saying "Blake Lively was not nice to me on this film set this one time." Okay, I believe it. She seems like the sort to be entitled and demanding. But I don't understand what it has to do with this case? People can be rude and entitled and still be sexually harassed. One thing doesn't really have a lot to do with the other, IME.

Don’t conflate things. You’re right that being odious, cruel, demeaning, and awful to people who you consider beneath you doesn’t mean you can’t be sexually harassed. It does, however, make it more plausible that she was odious, cruel, demeaning, and awful to Baldoni, as he alleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is just sort of weird because it doubles as a celebrity gossip thread and a thread about the court case. So you have lots of people posting general negative stories on Blake being a diva or their feelings that Baldoni is creepy and I sort of want to say "so what? That doesn't mean they don't have a case" but my understanding is Jeff only wanted posts reported if they are attacking other posters or blatantly misogynistic or trollish, so I try to report those, and just scroll on by the other posts that don't interest me.

It is weird because there’s a few attorneys on here spouting out legal jargon and talking shop, while the rest of us are just speculating on what we’re seeing play out in the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

That hairstylist is currently selling a self-published book on his time working in Hollywood (which appears to be long over) -- he's looking for clicks.

So? Are you accusing him of lying about his perineal experience with Blake?

Maybe? Who cares if he found her rude on a set when he worked with her like 10 years ago. He references going to see her in The Shallows after working with her (to "cheer on the shark" lol). That movie came out in 2016.

He's not even alleging she did anything except was unpleasant to work with. Ok? What does that have to do with literally anything here? Lots of people are unpleasant to work with. Who cares? No one has argued that she's a saint and that no one has ever had a negative experience working with her.

Ooo like maybe? Thank you so much for providing the legal analysis that only Bowen Yang can give, by the way.

Like omg like maybe everyone’s a hater okay??? Who cares about her reputation? Unconnected to what I just said did you know that people made up bad stories about her to decimate her pristine rep and like ruin her LIFE and her booze line and her hair care? So mean. All Blake wanted was for her legions of fans to #weartheirflorals to her romcom where romantically and comically, her character gets hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

This confirms that they are asking for every single text, phone call, etc. . .for each Wayfarer defendant from December 1, 2022 to present, exactly how described in Freedman’s motion. Exactly the fishing expedition several of us have identified.

I see what the other person was talking about now. 2022 is when when Blake was in talks to sign on board so that timeline makes sense. Blake is saying justin was okay with collaboration while the Wayfarer is saying that's not true. Blake doesn't have to prove only the SH but has to prove Justin's claims are false. I am going back to my original opinion. She will most likely have to tailor it more but i don't think those is outrageous asks.

+1 The dates track with the timeline of Lively's employment and the origin of the conflict in Justin's complaint (Lively's complaint doesn't not indicate conflict until March/April of 2023, a few months later). And they are properly requesting a much shorter timeline for Nathan and the TAG employees. Yes the request will be narrowed by the court. But the timeline of the request makes sense.

Starting to really wonder what Lively's team has so far on Jed Wallace though. If they have nothing, then asking for his comms dating from December 1, 2022 is pretty crazy. He's not yet even a named defendant, and in her 1st complaint, the only think tying Wallace to her claims is the comment in the PR texts (in August 2024) saying "thanks to Jed's team" or something similar. That won't be enough to get discovery from Wallace dating back to 2022.

So what does Lively's team have that would allow them to credibly make that argument? If they can connect Wallace to Wayfarer as far back as 2022, this is a huge problem for Wayfarer. If they can't... I have some real questions about their strategy here.

You don’t get two and a half years of data for a film that these folks were working on in any capacity, including promotion, for a matter of months. Discovery requests are required to be narrowly tailored to a party’s claims.

The funny thing is that the providers won’t have retained 3 years of anything beyond phone records maybe. Typically they keep the other stuff, like texts, only for a few months. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors can request that phone/internet companies retain records before charges are brought, but there is no similar retention request here.

So Blake’s lawyers will get called out by the judge for these requests, which he’ll narrow, but they were never going to get much out of the requests anyway besides recent texts. They are just dummies.