Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
| Can one of the many lawyers who comment regularly on this thread explain to those of us who don't understand the legal ramifications why, if she can still ask and receive for millions of dollars in damages (no just lawyer fees) without concern that it could be appealed, Wayfarer settled? If it went to trial, Lively could have been awarded millions. Now that it doesn't go to trial, they could have the same consequence. What did they gain? |
Anonymous
First, it only relates to her attorney’s fees with respect to the motion to dismiss Baldoni’s complaint, not the entire case. Second, Baldoni’s lawyers don’t think the motion is likely to be granted, it’s been pending since early fall. Blake settled for no money, which is highly unusual. Letting the motion survive was a fig leaf to her. Liman will likely rule on the motion quickly. |
Anonymous
Of course, because Blake has no career and hasn't had a career for 10 plus years. She's only getting favors and mooching off Ryan's clout after his shocking late-career success with Deadpool. That said, Ryan is damaged goods now too. And he's old. And these reddit dweeb super hero movies are passe. |
Anonymous
Don't forget their SNL stunt. They are both arrogant uneducated nitwits. They are DUMB. |
Anonymous
This is simply untrue. Multiple people testified to Blake's work ethic and the time she put in on this movie, including people associated with Wayfarer. Regarding editing, Colleen Hoover testified to spending hours with Blake going over her cut of the movie so that Colleen could provide detailed feedback based on what she believed book readers wanted. And that was just one session with Colleen. She may not have been in the editing pay for 10 hours a day, she may have been in there one day and then reviewing cuts at home and providing feedback. The idea that she just delegated and walked away is clearly false based on the evidentiary record. This is such an ongoing issue for me for the pro-Justin side. There is an absolute refusal to take in the whole picture of this situation, to see nuance or to even acknowledge any facts that are not 100% supportive of your side. It's just: Blake is a villain (this is literally what someone upthread said they believed) and Justin is blameless and she lied and he told only the truth and she must be punished and he must be exonerated. That's not how anything works, but it's definitely not what happened here. These are both flawed people. It's complex. Looking at it through the lens of good v. evil is frankly childish and makes it impossible to discuss because you will just dismiss ANY inconvenient fact as "lies" even if it's coming from a neutral third party or is an admitted fact on the record agreed to by both sides. It's like arguing with a toddler. |
Anonymous
They really are dumb. I was shocked by Ryan’s emails. My middle schoolers write better than he does. |
Anonymous
I agree they both played a role in this. It was clearly a workplace that needed reforms though the court made the right call re: tossing the SH claims. And though it’s clear he absolutely needed to hire crisis/PR after learning that Ryan Reynolds was calling him a sexual predator, getting favors from his A-list friends, he should’ve gone with a better agency because I do think TAG were scrupulous and sloppy with their promises though I do not think they lack have the power without the use of bots to turn social media against one person, and I really never did see any evidence of the bot armies. But like I said, I don’t think they are the best people. However, you wrong in saying Blake has a strong work ethic and using only a bunch of people who are blowing smoke up her butt the entire time saying that she worked as evidence of that is laughable. She was 16 days on set and she tried to take credit as a director? She wasn’t even on set for the young Lily scenes which actually were the strongest in the film. Sure, she was reviewing clips, but that is not editing! People with actual credentials should get credit for that - not just her giving her opinion. I think certain movies are too long and some scene should be cut. I guess I should get editing credit? Give me a break. Sure she should get some credit for providing input but just taking full credit for editing is insane to me. And if you read her PGA letter, that is exactly what she tried to do. Firing people because you don’t like them is not the same as Justin taking a year to hire every person on that cast and crew. Not to mention, he spent the years prior having to where with all to option the book before anyone cared about Colleen Hoover, and develop it into a movie as well as secure financing and get Sony, a major studio, to distribute. Having your husband write the rooftop scene does mean that you wrote part of the movie. And I recall Blake had to write a lengthy apology letter to the actual screenwriter for taking credit for writing the movie. How embarrassing. And signing your name to a licensing agreement does not mean you run a hair care company. |
Anonymous
Yes. So there was Lively's original lawsuit (Lively v. Wayfarer, let's call it "Blake's Complaint"). This is the lawsuit that kicked the whole thing off. This is the lawsuit where a significant number of her allegations were dismissed last month, with a few remaining allegations that were going to go to trial (I will leave it up to interpretation as to whether these were "minor remaining" or "the core of her case" -- I think reasonable people can disagree on that point). This is also the case that has been settled, so the trial won't happen and the case will be closed. Reports are that no money changed hands regarding this case, so Blake will not receive any money from this case, including presumably attorney's fees. However, after Blake's Complaint was filed, Baldoni and Wayfarer countersued (let's call this "Baldoni's Complaint"). Baldoni allege a variety of things in his countersuit, but a central argument was that Blake and others (including Ryan Reynolds and Leslie Sloane) had defamed Baldoni. The fact that Baldoni's Complaint alleged defamation is important, remember it. Baldoni's Complaint, however, was dismissed last summer for a variety of reasons, including a pretty blatant group pleading issue (the complaint never makes clear who is being accused of which allegation and what facts he is offering to support individualized causes of action, which is a no-no -- defendants must understand what they are being accused of and why, so that they may defend themselves) and that dismissal became final in fall 2025 -- he had a chance to amend and refile at least some of his claims but chose not to take it. After Baldoni's Complaint was dismissed, Blake filed something called a 47.1 motion ("Blake's 47.1 Motion"). This is a motion based on a relatively new California law called by some the "MeToo Law." The goal of this law is to prevent abusers and harassers from silencing their victims by simply suing them for defamation whenever the victims speak out, or sue, their alleged abusers/harassers. The law protects people who make "good faith claims" of sexual harassment, abuse, or discrimination "without malice". What that means in layperson speaks it that the accuser really believes their claims and is making them due to that belief, not just to punish or hurt another person. How does the law protect them? Well, with an anti-retaliation clause that says if the accuser wins a defamation lawsuit against them brought by the person they have accused, the accuser is entitled to significant damages -- recovery of attorney's fees and both treble and punitive damages, which can add up to a LOT of money. So remember how Baldoni's Complaint had, as its central premise, the idea that Blake had defamed him by bringing these allegations against him? That's the defamation suit. And remember how Baldoni's Complaint was dismissed by the court? That, according to the 47.1 motion, was Blake winning the defamation suit (this is a bit tricky because there's a question as to whether Blake won "on the merits" or "on a technicality" -- IMO it was a mixture of both but this could be very critical to the 47.1 motion). Blake's 47.1 motion has a lot of backup -- a bunch of advocacy groups who work on behalf of survivors of sexual violence and harassment filed amicus briefs (that's like a letter to the court supporting one of the parties from a person or group who isn't directly involved in the litigation but has a vested interest in its outcome). This is a Big Deal because 47.1 hasn't really been tested before, and this case could (emphasis *could*) be influential in how it is applied in the future. So even though Lively's Complaint has been settled, and Baldoni's Complaint has been dismissed, there is this open question of the Blake's 47.1 Motion. The settlement doesn't touch it, but does do something weird -- it disallows either party from appealing the outcome of the 47.1 motion. Why? Good question! No one knows. I have a suspicion I may post in another comment. But the upshot is that if the judge decides the motion in Blake's favor and awards her damages (which the statute creating the cause of action makes very likely because it's sort of the entire point of the law), then Baldoni and Wayfarer and all the other defendants can't do anything about it -- they will be court ordered to pay out. Of course, the same is true for Blake -- if the judge rules against her, then that's it, game over, and she gets nothing. So to answer your question about what the benefit of the settlement is then? The main benefit is no more trial. This could be seen as a benefit for both sides, since trials are expensive and they both had risk exposure of embarrassment. Since Wayfarer was the defendant, they also get the benefit of not having any risk of Blake winning the trial, whereas Blake gives up the opportunity to win. Blake did get a kind of lukewarm admission as part of the settlement announcement (that her concerns "deserved to be heard") but that's not as good as money. So the settlement of Blake's Complaint has benefits for both, but is a net win for Wayfarer/Baldoni. But this outcome is heavily mitigated by the fact that the settlement does not include Blake's 47.1 Motion. Judge's are usually less unpredictable than juries, but it is very hard to predict how Liman will rule in this case for several reasons. One is that there is a new law, so you can't look at a bunch of precedent to get a sense of what he will decide. Another is that he's a federal judge in NY and he will have to apply CA law here, which can be tricky. There is some chance he could argue the CA law doesn't apply, but I think that's unlikely -- Wayfarer is a CA company, Baldoni resided in CA at the time of Blake's Complaint, the Complaint was originally filed with a CA agency. That's likely enough of a CA nexus to apply the law. But how? There is also that issue I mentioned above as to whether a dismissal of a defamation lawsuit for technical reasons (or partially technical reasons, as I would argue) constitutes a win for the purposes of 47.1. And then there is the question of damages and how Liman would apply the damages provision of 47.1 if he were to find Blake met the requirements for application of the law. So to summarize, getting rid of Blake's Complaint is unquestionably a positive for Wayfarer and Baldoni, but the 47.1 motion is a pretty enormous loose end with a huge potential cost if it doesn't go their way. But had they proceeded with the trial, they would have been subject to risk of a payout for both Blake's Complaint AND Blake's 47.1 Motion. Now they just risk the 47.1. We shall see what happens. It's definitely not over yet. |
Anonymous
No, I wasn't referring to her "reviewing clips." I'm referring to her going through the entire cut of the film, scene by scene, with Hoover and the editor, to get Colleen's notes so that she and the editor could make a new cut incorporating them. That's not "reviewing clips." That's editing. |
Anonymous
A lot of words to say “I”m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.” |
Anonymous
But a lot of people work to get the clips even ready for her to review. This is what people don’t understand and what people like Blake take advantage of. It’s like she doesn’t even acknowledge the years of work that went into building set, the script hiring everybody. She literally walked into a set from years of work and then she’s acting like she’s the one who made the movie. Like a huge part of the film is getting the script, the set, all the location scouting, and set up. It’s a huge undertaking and her PGA 2 was just so offensive. The things that she reviewed took hours to get to her. Have you ever worked anywhere near film editing? It’s not just grabbing what was shot that day and having her make notes. Professional editors sent her clips that they spent hours working on and yes, she made notes with Colleen. Like I said she should get some credit for that. But it’s only one part of the editing process. Then hundreds of more hours were spent on things like music, sound editing, getting the lighting right, retouching. Blake doesn’t know how to do any of that crap. And she didn’t give anyone else credit for it. |
Anonymous
Of course other people are involved with the literal cutting of the footage. That person is called the editor and of course they were credited. Literally, in the credits to the movie. And Blake also talks about them in texts and emails -- part of her argument for getting in to do her edit was that she had access to a very good editor through Ryan (I think the editor who worked on Deadpool) and she wanted to work within his schedule. It's her cut because she made the decisions on what to cut and what to keep, which takes to use, what order to put the scenes in some cases, etc. Yes the editor is doing a lot of work without her (that's their job) but they are doing that work based on her direction and requests, including those that she compiled while working with Colleen. Justin also created a cut of the film where he worked with editors who did all of the technical work of the editing process. It was still referred to as "Justin's cut" of the movie. Because it was. Even though he didn't literally do all of the work of putting it together. He made the decisions that resulted in the cut. This is a great example of someone going after Blake for doing literally the exact same thing that Justin did, yet somehow Blake is an evil villain who is also lazy and Justin is a saint. They did the same work! If you want to hate Blake, hate her, but I do not understand why you make up these ridiculous reasons to hate her. It would be like if I complained that Justin was super fake and my evidence of this is that he wore makeup in the movie, and this is evidence he was hiding something and is not genuine. That would be stupid on its face because all actors wear makeup in movies, and Blake wore makeup in the movie, the makeup is not really an issue here and is not evidence of anything for anyone involved. Same with the editing. Yes, Blake participated in the editing process and created her own cut, just like Justin. The end. |
Anonymous
This is a neutral and accurate description of the current state of the case, what are you criticizing. This should be pinned and anyone commenting on the post-settlement situation should be forced to read it so they know what they are talking about. |
Anonymous
Read the PGA letter and get back to me . read some of the texts Blake sent to her friends. She edited the whole movie blah blah blah. Justin never once said he edited the movie. He was more clearly describing in texts actually what he did. Sitting in the editing bay with editors, etc. he also never took credit for the screenplay which Blake did which is why she had to write that ridiculous letter to Christy Hall apologizing. Did you not read any of the ridiculous emails and texts going around about how Blake only slept an hour and a half a night toward the end because she was working so hard in the movie? It’s ridiculous. I believe that she was scheming that hard and sending unopened emails to Ben Affleck and such, but no, she wasn’t working that hard on the movie. And if you think she was, you just weren’t paying attention. |