Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

Just looked at the requests again, and Freedman is correct. On their face they seek all documents related to x phone number, “including but not limited to” call records, text records, data logs and location data.

It’s common to start overboard in the request and then negotiate a more limited position. All of this letter writing is totally normal, but usually only between counsel and not brought up w judge until parties are at an impasse. Still, some judges allow for overbroad discovery so it’s a gamble unless you have a good handle on judges historical rulings on discovery issues. And, it comes to bite you if so, since other party can then also ask for overbroad discovery.

Yeah, not really. I realize you're "I never said I was a lawyer" and deeply invested in the Lively defense but personally, I found this to be egregiously over broad. Better to go in asking for a scalpel version than a net. It's a fishing expedition. Lively and Reynolds are only good for one thing and that's for bringing in the $$$$ for those billables.

Honestly, have you EVER litigated a case? It truly sounds like you have not. I’ve not only clerked for a federal district court judge, but I have also done sexual harassment cases on the plaintiff side and been at a white shoe firm. Discovery starting broad and being narrowed is *completely normal.* Like, not even batting an eye.

Dp, 20 year litigator, and I agree with pp that Blake’’s subpoena is extremely overbroad. Moreover, her counsel for some reason misrepresented the scope of the requests in their letter response which will anger the judge. Due to the inclusion of the “including but not limited to” language, her requests are clearly not limited to non content documents. It isn’t even debatable, every litigator knows the meaning of that phrase.

What did you think of their long definition section? They had a very comprehensive definition of social media but then never used that definition anywhere else in the doc, would that imply they're requesting all social media postings as part of "all documents" "including but not limited to" the logs? I'm not a litigator and don't know what's typical because when I draft a contract I don't include definitions for terms I don't later use so I thought it was odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

Just looked at the requests again, and Freedman is correct. On their face they seek all documents related to x phone number, “including but not limited to” call records, text records, data logs and location data.

It’s common to start overboard in the request and then negotiate a more limited position. All of this letter writing is totally normal, but usually only between counsel and not brought up w judge until parties are at an impasse. Still, some judges allow for overbroad discovery so it’s a gamble unless you have a good handle on judges historical rulings on discovery issues. And, it comes to bite you if so, since other party can then also ask for overbroad discovery.

Yeah, not really. I realize you're "I never said I was a lawyer" and deeply invested in the Lively defense but personally, I found this to be egregiously over broad. Better to go in asking for a scalpel version than a net. It's a fishing expedition. Lively and Reynolds are only good for one thing and that's for bringing in the $$$$ for those billables.

Honestly, have you EVER litigated a case? It truly sounds like you have not. I’ve not only clerked for a federal district court judge, but I have also done sexual harassment cases on the plaintiff side and been at a white shoe firm. Discovery starting broad and being narrowed is *completely normal.* Like, not even batting an eye.

Dp, 20 year litigator, and I agree with pp that Blake’’s subpoena is extremely overbroad. Moreover, her counsel for some reason misrepresented the scope of the requests in their letter response which will anger the judge. Due to the inclusion of the “including but not limited to” language, her requests are clearly not limited to non content documents. It isn’t even debatable, every litigator knows the meaning of that phrase.

What did you think of their long definition section? They had a very comprehensive definition of social media but then never used that definition anywhere else in the doc, would that imply they're requesting all social media postings as part of "all documents" "including but not limited to" the logs? I'm not a litigator and don't know what's typical because when I draft a contract I don't include definitions for terms I don't later use so I thought it was odd.

It’s odd only because they are now claiming to be seeking non content documents. But the subpoena is in no way so limited, including in the definition section. Further, the last request doesn’t even mention logs. Really short sighted move to misrepresent their own discovery in their letter response. The judge will see the subpoena itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

[Anonymous]

I’m PP above and a different person than you’re responding to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

[Anonymous]

And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

I've seen it mentioned on Reddit but not here. Criticism of Baldoni doesn't get traction here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read. [/quote
Lively and her neutral litigators here are grasping and desperate. What a way to characterize that lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

It has not been posted here, so thank you. I read through it and it's interesting, not sure it moves the needle. Reads almost like a contract claim calling it retaliation because plaintiff complained about racial insensitivity during George Floyd. It wasn’t the same sort of retaliation Lively is alleging with the troll army which was more of an affirmative attempt to destroy her.

I am not a Baldoni supporter but I find it unfair to mention his religion's views on sexual morality, which are fairly in line with major world religions, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

I've seen it mentioned on Reddit but not here. Criticism of Baldoni doesn't get traction here.

Because it’s horseshit - unless of course you can explain the parties involved, the bases alleged, all of it. I don’t know why you’re taking up for a brassy-haired liar so don’t be shy, make those astute comparisons, build that pattern.

Case in point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And desperate bid it was by BL’s legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-may-realizing-she-040043634.html

Britneys old dress looks bad on BL even with panels added (I guess it’s editing…), the dimensions and beauty of the beading got screwed in the process. And her makeup makes her a twin to Guy Fawkes. Who told her she had a good stylist’s eye?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

I really appreciate this post for the level of detail, use of sources and neutral tone. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

Just looked at the requests again, and Freedman is correct. On their face they seek all documents related to x phone number, “including but not limited to” call records, text records, data logs and location data.

It’s common to start overboard in the request and then negotiate a more limited position. All of this letter writing is totally normal, but usually only between counsel and not brought up w judge until parties are at an impasse. Still, some judges allow for overbroad discovery so it’s a gamble unless you have a good handle on judges historical rulings on discovery issues. And, it comes to bite you if so, since other party can then also ask for overbroad discovery.

Yeah, not really. I realize you're "I never said I was a lawyer" and deeply invested in the Lively defense but personally, I found this to be egregiously over broad. Better to go in asking for a scalpel version than a net. It's a fishing expedition. Lively and Reynolds are only good for one thing and that's for bringing in the $$$$ for those billables.

Honestly, have you EVER litigated a case? It truly sounds like you have not. I’ve not only clerked for a federal district court judge, but I have also done sexual harassment cases on the plaintiff side and been at a white shoe firm. Discovery starting broad and being narrowed is *completely normal.* Like, not even batting an eye.

Dp, 20 year litigator, and I agree with pp that Blake’’s subpoena is extremely overbroad. Moreover, her counsel for some reason misrepresented the scope of the requests in their letter response which will anger the judge. Due to the inclusion of the “including but not limited to” language, her requests are clearly not limited to non content documents. It isn’t even debatable, every litigator knows the meaning of that phrase.

What did you think of their long definition section? They had a very comprehensive definition of social media but then never used that definition anywhere else in the doc, would that imply they're requesting all social media postings as part of "all documents" "including but not limited to" the logs? I'm not a litigator and don't know what's typical because when I draft a contract I don't include definitions for terms I don't later use so I thought it was odd.

It’s odd only because they are now claiming to be seeking non content documents. But the subpoena is in no way so limited, including in the definition section. Further, the last request doesn’t even mention logs. Really short sighted move to misrepresent their own discovery in their letter response. The judge will see the subpoena itself.

BL supporters ignoring this, perhaps talking points will be sent out by this afternoon on their crazy Reddit page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.

At the time Lively’s letter request for extension was received, Lively had repeatedly asked for agreement but had not received it from Baldoni. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cks9vf13vMrYZodh7vBjZ1j4FudER8_l/view

When Baldoni replied, he “agreed” to the extension but only if the judge would *then* allow a further extension on Baldoni’s response to a month and a half out from then (rather than the normal month). This was essentially strategically piling another extension request on top of Lively’s request. And while agreeing (with their own extension request), he also noted that Lively had not agreed to their own requests despite the LA wildfires etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1incnyq/team_baldonis_reply_to_blakes_request_for/

The judge allowed Lively only a weekend extension on the amended complaint, from Friday to Monday, far less than the 2.5 weeks Lively had requested. He did grant Lively’s request for any Motion to Dismiss to be due on March 20 (or in any case confirmed it was so originally set as Lively had requested). He declined to grant what was essentially a request from both parties for 45 days to respond to the amended complaints, maybe out of self preservation to get these parties moving rather than sniping at one another for even longer periods of time ha.

But you or someone has claimed multiple times on here that it’s unheard of for a judge to decline an extension request when both parties agreed. Freeman “agreed” on paper but only by imposing his own 45 day extension request for which he had shown no cause (and by reminding judge Lively had not agreed under more difficult circumstances). So the judge granted a very limited extension and didn’t grant Baldoni any extension at all. This isn’t really the unheard of type of judicial response you’re describing. Freeman didn’t not really “agree” to the extension with adding a condition for his own extension. Those extensions mostly got denied though Lively did get the March 20 MTD date confirmed.

Well, it was extremely shitty for BL not to agree to Freedman’s initial extension request. That is typically not done, especially when the other party is subject to a natural disaster.

Further, the judge could easily have given Lively the extension Freedman had agreed to, and denied Baldoni’s request. But I don’t think Baldoni was actually seeking an extension from the judge at the time so he didn’t deny anything with respect to Baldoni. In any case, I stand by my statement that it is exceedingly rare for a judge to deny a consented to motion. I can recall ever seeing it in my personal legal practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

It has not been posted here, so thank you. I read through it and it's interesting, not sure it moves the needle. Reads almost like a contract claim calling it retaliation because plaintiff complained about racial insensitivity during George Floyd. It wasn’t the same sort of retaliation Lively is alleging with the troll army which was more of an affirmative attempt to destroy her.

I am not a Baldoni supporter but I find it unfair to mention his religion's views on sexual morality, which are fairly in line with major world religions, anyway.

I actually do see some connecting threads there. In both instances (the prior case and Lively's case) it seems Wayfarer was trying to prevent itself as specifically very progressive and that the way it spoke about those progressive values didn't sit right with someone actually employed by them. Like in the prior case, it's like they are trying to be sensitive to BLM and the George Floyd murder by talking about it, but then they've got a black employee who finds the way they talk about it to be tone deaf and insensitive.

I think there was something similar with IEWU. I think Baldoni and Heath felt they were being feminist in the way they approached the sex scenes, the birth scene, and Lively's breastfeeding on set, but that they way they handled it instead felt tone deaf and insensitive to Lively.