Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lively doesn’t have anything to do with this other lawsuit, which was filed in 2020 - not sure what Lively’s hair color has to do with anything here? I guess you’re saying Baldoni’s treatment of this dude is not relevant here, though a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed against Baldoni and Wayfarer a few years before events in this case began seems relevant? As described in this subreddit, about which I know nothing beyond it seems to be very pro-Lively or anti-Baldoni, it may suggest that Baldoni has a tendency to exploit people for his and his production company’s personal gain and isn’t afraid to retaliate, especially with the weight of his backer behind him.

Let’s stick with the present. Why did BL’s lawyers represent their subpoena as seeking only non content documents when the subpoena is in no way so limited? Seems sanctionable.

Still waiting on this.

The answer is that it is implied that they were only looking for logs because, and this is important, it's all the service providers can give them.

Service providers do not keep the content of messages. They don't record your phone calls. In order to get the text of messages, you have to subpoena the devices themselves, which they did not. So when they ask for all info related to a specific phone number, they are only looking for logs because that's all they can get.

It's pretty standard in a case like this to do a subpoena for call and text logs fairly early on because it creates a framework they can use for future discovery. Especially in a case like this where Lively and her team are going to have a lot of their own communications, and can use that to make sense of the logs to make a more specific request.

Both parties understand this, as do the service providers and the judge. But Baldoni's team knows that the average person does not understand this, which is why they drafted that letter that intentionally utilized a layperson's misunderstanding of the subpoena request to file objections. They knew their letter would make the rounds on social media and that the pro-JB crowd (who mostly have no idea how any of this works) would jump on it and say "oh yeah, here's Lively being grasping and unreasonable again." And it worked. But the judge will see through that and know that what his team is alleging was requested was never requested (communications with a doctor? spousal communication? come ON) in the first place.

It was a smart PR ploy but a meaningless legal move. I don't think it will really hurt them in court, at least not at this stage, but all the talk online about how Lively's team "screwed up" is just nonsense. This is how discovery in cases like this work. I've worked on a bunch of them and sat down with those stupid call logs and had to use them to construct specific discovery requests for the actual communications.

Nope, try again. It is not true that providers do not have copies of texts. They don’t maintain them for long but law enforcement commonly get them. And of course, kf one only wants logs, then one only requests logs.

But I admire your willingness to completely make things up. Perhaps there is a place on the Lively legal team for you.

Sure, law enforcement can get them where public safety overrides privacy concerns but (1) only for a very short period of time -- the carriers only hold the texts for a few days, at most a few weeks, and (2) because law enforcement is the only entity that can override the need for consent to disclose. Otherwise you need the sending party to consent to having the messages disclosed. And again, this is only for the very narrow period of time where the carrier even retains the messages. The carriers subpoenaed in this case likely do not currently have any messages for any party prior to 2025.

So no, there is no way to read these subpoena requests as requesting the actual messages. They were requesting call and text logs, as is very standard for an initial discovery request in a case like this.

Actually on there face they seek “all documents “ “including BUT NOT LIMITED TO” logs and the last request does not even mention logs of my type.

any type.

[Anonymous]

Not sure why they would leak these allegations if they are going to be in the complaint.

[Anonymous]

According to Reddit page pp cited, Blake shopped new allegations to TMZ and Daily Mail, and they both rejected them.

[Anonymous]

The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

When were they filed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

They are talking about the Ferrer complaint now, and it honestly sounds really bad. Like just very disturbing behavior towards an actress for whom this was her very first movie. Pressuring her to do intimate things not in the script, touching her body while giving direction on the scene, leaning in very close to her face and restricted her mobility while "providing direction." It sounds skeevy. It does not paint Baldoni in a positive light at all. There is none of the defenses that people used with Lively's allegations -- Ferrer is not famous or powerful, Baldoni was not acting in the scene with her so his actions cannot be interpreted as him being in character.

It sounds bad.

The Jenny Slate thing is way less bad (he apparently touched her butt while adjusting her posture and she said it was inappropriate, he said it's okay because he's married and that if she didn't like she could go to HR, so she went to HR) but does contribute to the sense that he was consistently inappropriate with women on set, didn't understand boundaries, seemed to think he was above or exempt from allegations of harassment, etc.

I think this is a game changer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

When were they filed?

Dates redacted on the livestream. As all things Blake, I am going to wait to see actual receipts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

When were they filed?

During the production. It's hard to provide exact dates because the livestream is putting them up and taking them down and the people dint it are these very annoying "content creators" and are often talking about stuff I find to be irrelevant. I hope the docs are just leaked as PDFs somewhere soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

They are talking about the Ferrer complaint now, and it honestly sounds really bad. Like just very disturbing behavior towards an actress for whom this was her very first movie. Pressuring her to do intimate things not in the script, touching her body while giving direction on the scene, leaning in very close to her face and restricted her mobility while "providing direction." It sounds skeevy. It does not paint Baldoni in a positive light at all. There is none of the defenses that people used with Lively's allegations -- Ferrer is not famous or powerful, Baldoni was not acting in the scene with her so his actions cannot be interpreted as him being in character.

It sounds bad.

The Jenny Slate thing is way less bad (he apparently touched her butt while adjusting her posture and she said it was inappropriate, he said it's okay because he's married and that if she didn't like she could go to HR, so she went to HR) but does contribute to the sense that he was consistently inappropriate with women on set, didn't understand boundaries, seemed to think he was above or exempt from allegations of harassment, etc.

I think this is a game changer.

Hard to square alleged Isabel allegations with the email she sent Baldoni. Why in the world would she compliment him on how he handled her in love scenes of he had in fact assaulted her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The livestream has copies of the HR complaints filed by Slate and Ferrer. They look like legit documents.

When were they filed?

Dates redacted on the livestream. As all things Blake, I am going to wait to see actual receipts.

The Slate complaint was filed the day it happened though, they said that easier.

[Anonymous]

^earlier, not easier, trying to type here and watch the livestream at the same time

[Anonymous]

In Ferrer’s alleged text message to Baldoni, she wrote:

"Just got my film developed from when we were shooting so here’s this sweet pic! I also have to say thank you SO much for an incredible experience on my first film. I still can’t shake the feeling of it all because it truly was life changing for me."

“You are such a wonderful, smart and sincere director and you created such a comfortable, safe space for me to feel like I could fully step into this role. I couldn’t have asked for a more welcoming environment. It will stay with me for the rest of my life!!! See you soon, whether in the fall or later, & hope you’re doing well.”

[Anonymous]

The pdfs are up and the date filed is redacted in all three. My guess is that they were filed very recently or absolutely no need to redact and probably all on the same day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pdfs are up and the date filed is redacted in all three. My guess is that they were filed very recently or absolutely no need to redact and probably all on the same day.

Gee that’s not suspicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pdfs are up and the date filed is redacted in all three. My guess is that they were filed very recently or absolutely no need to redact and probably all on the same day.

Also all went to Sony which said they had received no complaints as of date Blake’s complaint filed.