Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

A lot of words to say “I”m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.”

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.

It's not remotely neutral. Blake's potential attorney's fees, should the Court decide to award any, are limited to the fees associated with Lively's cost defending the defamation claim in Baldoni's complaint (i.e. her motion to dismiss). She was seeking $300 million at trial, her fees for that motion are in the thousands. Both Fritz and Freedman have explicitly said this, and a prudent attorney would ascertain the amount at risk before agreeing to anything. Contrary to op's assertion, there is not a huge pot of money at risk, it's a relatively small and known amount.

Further, the Court has already found that 47.1 did not apply to Lively's sexual harassment claims because lack of nexus with California, and WF had a motion pending (and fully briefed) challenging whether her retaliation claims under 47.1 should also be dismissed. Thus, pp saying we have no indication how the Court leans with respect to the applicability of 47.1 is incorrect. It is very possible and perhaps likely that the Court will find that Likely cannot invoke 47.1's attorney's fee provision.

Finally, federal court judges generally are hesitant to address a state law question of first impression, especially from a state where they do not sit. That further increases the odds against an award of fees under 47.1.

To the damages issue, no, you are incorrect. 47.1 entitled a defendant to three kinds of damages: attorneys fees and costs, treble damages, and punitive damages. It's in the statute. Yes, *if* Blake won then the attorneys fees portion would be limited to her fees for defending against the defamation claims against her. But she would also be eligible for treble and punitive damages, which can be in the millions. I didn't say Liman would definitely award them, but if he granted the motion, he could. So there is in fact a large and potentially unknown amount in damages still at stake. 47.1 is designed to punish people who use defamation claims to silence people with good faith abuse claims, so the law is written towards that end. Many of the amicus briefs also touched on this. The motion is not limited to just attorneys fees.

Second, the court did not find anything as to Lively's original 47.1 motion as contained within her motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed it without prejudice. He did discuss the California nexus question when he dismissed her SH claims earlier this year, but he explicitly allowed the 47.1 motion to proceed. So no, he has not indicated how he might rule on the 47.1 motion. And my point was that it's hard to know how he will rule because there is no real case law to reference. It's a new law. This makes it hard to anticipate what reasoning he might apply, which makes the decision to let it proceed post-settlement, with an agreement by both sides not to appeal, high risk. What if he surprises them (either side)? They will be stuck with the outcome whatever it is.

I agree that a federal judge in SDNY has zero interest in deciding a novel issue of CA state law, and suspect this is the main reason he has repeatedly punted on this motion. But he can't just say "look, I don't want to, so motion denied." Blake is entitled to bring the action in SDNY because that's where the underlying claims were made. And federal judges absolutely can, and frequently do, apply the laws of states where they do not reside. They don't like to, but they do, because so many federal cases are premised on diversity jurisdiction or involve multiple jurisdictional issues. So he's going to have to come up with something.

It’s extremely unlikely that Blake will get any damages, especially given that judge has already found 47.1 not applicable to her sexual harassment claims. There is really no chance she is getting treble or punitive damages, especially after her own case was tossed and she chose not to move ahead on the few remaining claims (the most significant of which was subject to a pending motion to dismiss on whether 47.1 app,led).

The fact that she did not prevail on ANY of her claims but particularly the sexual harassment claims, makes it extremely unlikely the Court would award treble or punitive damages. Given that she dropped her claims for literally nothing in return strongly suggests they were fabricated or completely unsupported by evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw on Reddit that Justin is rumored to be setting up a big sit down interview with someone to "tell his story." Curious if it will be a legit journalist or, like, Megyn Kelly. Or worse, one of the CCs that Freedman is always chatting with. It would be pretty funny to me if Justin's big interview was only available on TikTok and Youtube.

He is also rumored to be writing a book.

As someone who at one point watched a few episodes of Baldoni's podcast to better understand who the heck he was, I would just like to let people know he sucks and is very annoying and if the upshot of this case settling is that we hear more from him, this is a net negative for everyone. That doesn't mean I want to hear from Blake (I don't!) but I think a lot of people have basically never heard Justin speak at length as himself and not in character for a movie. It is grating. There is a reason a lot of people associated with this movie (not just Blake) wound up just not liking or respecting him.

I don't think he really matters. He's basically a figurehead who could be anyone that people would support over Blake. People on here talk about others being "Pro Baldoni" but it's really being more "Anti Lively" in this scenario. Sure, maybe he's annoying. Who cares? Anyone who was in his shoes being slandered as a sexual predator and having their career destroyed by much more powerful people was always going to have support. I'd venture to say most supporters of his didn't even really know wiho he was before this, I certainly didn't. But I am on his side even if he's a little grating.

He certainly has done nothing that set people off for the past two years, unlike Blake and Ryan. Further, his texts/emails sound like the work of a normal person while Blake and Ryan manage to sound like complete psychos whenever they text or email.

I disagree his text/emails sound like the work of a "normal person." Agree Blake and Ryan sound insufferable but so does Baldoni. It's just different versions of insufferable.

Ryan is very "Hollywood" -- it's all "oh my god, you're amazing", "no, YOU'RE amazing", "omg stop!" And little inside jokes and a lot of confidence. Yes, it would irritate me and I do not invest time in people like that in my life. It does not come off as sincere.

But Justin strikes me as a vulnerable narcissist. He uses vulnerability to get people to like him (and he is desperate for people to like him, this especially comes across when he's telling a bunch of different people what they want to hear and it all conflicts). I find his male feminist schtick to be part of this same pattern. He's like "I realize I'm imperfect, I have been the patriarchy, but now I understand and I'm on the side of women." But then he uses that confession/vulnerability like a shield, so it's like you're not allowed to criticize or even just say "hey this bothered me" without him falling apart into tears and apologies (so now the whole conversation is about *his* feelings). I have known people like this and it is VERY toxic. They are virtually impossible to work with. There is no accountability for their own actions because they just act like the victim of their own behavior and choices all the time. It's really exhausting.

I actually found many of Blake's emails genuine. I thought the exchange between her and Taylor where Blake says she noticed that Taylor has felt distant and wanted to reach out, and Taylor tells her that Blake had been just obsessively discussing the case, and then Blake sends a jokey form letter as a form of apology -- that felt very real to me. Whatever their friendship is now, that is exactly who real friends connect and communicate after years, and there was real vulnerability there. I also have read many of the texts between Blake and Jenny, and Blake and Colleen, and there is realness there. There was one I saw recently where Jenny was asking Blake if Colleen was mad at her (at Jenny I mean) because she'd seemed to have a weird vibe at a recent event, and Blake's response was very empathetic towards both Colleen and Jenny, basically noting how Colleen seems to deal with stress and how overwhelming everything had been and reassuring Jenny. It was sweet! She seems like a good friend. Also another back and forth between Blake and Colleen expressing how meaningful it was for them to work on the project together. It sounds like two working moms discussing how hard it can be to go to work away from your kids when it doesn't feel rewarding, and thanking each other for being supportive in the process and making it rewarding for one another. Again, that one feels real to me.

But I think people don't read that stuff. They just read like the khaleesi email (which, yes, is embarrassing and winds up sounding needy and dumb) and the stuff from Ryan and decide they know enough.

I actually like Blake more after reading a bunch of her private texts and emails than I did before, and I don't think that is true of most people.

And yes, I've read way too much stuff associated with this case and yes I'm obsessed with all of it and yes it's unhealthy. Whatever. You're here too.

Blake’s voice note to Justin that was released in one of the dumps a few months ago, the one that starts,” I hope you’re so well….”

It literally chilled me to my bone. Because I know people like that. It’s incredibly manipulative and almost every interaction with Justin or with Taylor, Blake immediately references Ryan. She’s very dependent on his power.

But more than that, Ryan and Blake both have a way just making you feel like you’re very close. And at that point she had just had the baby and they had met for the first time in December so these people had known each other maybe a month? And she’s talking about how much she trusts him and how safe she feels, how she didn’t want to bring this to his attention, but Ryan was like “no you’re friends, you should.” And let’s remember these people were coworkers. He was her director and costar. Just very weird behavior to act as if they have a deep, vulnerable m, trusting relationship. You could also spot from a mile away the way that they started asking for favors they were seeing how far they could go to push this guy. Asking for the filming locations to be changed, asking for the shoot schedule to be changed. Within a couple of weeks.

I found the texts with Taylor not genuine at all. It sounds like they have a very superficial relationship. I’m not surprised that they’re not speaking anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I saw on Reddit that Justin is rumored to be setting up a big sit down interview with someone to "tell his story." Curious if it will be a legit journalist or, like, Megyn Kelly.

I am dying to know what on earth kind of confidentiality language was in that settlement. This is so bizarre.

NAG explained in a video, with a big caveat that she obviously hasn’t seen the settlement, but what she thinks could be a possibility is that they are allowed to tell the story of their life, how the trial affected them, how the shoot affected them etc. within certain parameters, without discussing things like details of the settlement or anything like that. So they can talk within certain parameters.

Because Justin was the one accused, it makes sense that he would want to tell his story. I imagine Blake if she is at all listening to her people which I know she’s in the habit of not doing, should just try to move on from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

A lot of words to say “I”m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.”

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.

It's not remotely neutral. Blake's potential attorney's fees, should the Court decide to award any, are limited to the fees associated with Lively's cost defending the defamation claim in Baldoni's complaint (i.e. her motion to dismiss). She was seeking $300 million at trial, her fees for that motion are in the thousands. Both Fritz and Freedman have explicitly said this, and a prudent attorney would ascertain the amount at risk before agreeing to anything. Contrary to op's assertion, there is not a huge pot of money at risk, it's a relatively small and known amount.

Further, the Court has already found that 47.1 did not apply to Lively's sexual harassment claims because lack of nexus with California, and WF had a motion pending (and fully briefed) challenging whether her retaliation claims under 47.1 should also be dismissed. Thus, pp saying we have no indication how the Court leans with respect to the applicability of 47.1 is incorrect. It is very possible and perhaps likely that the Court will find that Likely cannot invoke 47.1's attorney's fee provision.

Finally, federal court judges generally are hesitant to address a state law question of first impression, especially from a state where they do not sit. That further increases the odds against an award of fees under 47.1.

To the damages issue, no, you are incorrect. 47.1 entitled a defendant to three kinds of damages: attorneys fees and costs, treble damages, and punitive damages. It's in the statute. Yes, *if* Blake won then the attorneys fees portion would be limited to her fees for defending against the defamation claims against her. But she would also be eligible for treble and punitive damages, which can be in the millions. I didn't say Liman would definitely award them, but if he granted the motion, he could. So there is in fact a large and potentially unknown amount in damages still at stake. 47.1 is designed to punish people who use defamation claims to silence people with good faith abuse claims, so the law is written towards that end. Many of the amicus briefs also touched on this. The motion is not limited to just attorneys fees.

Second, the court did not find anything as to Lively's original 47.1 motion as contained within her motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed it without prejudice. He did discuss the California nexus question when he dismissed her SH claims earlier this year, but he explicitly allowed the 47.1 motion to proceed. So no, he has not indicated how he might rule on the 47.1 motion. And my point was that it's hard to know how he will rule because there is no real case law to reference. It's a new law. This makes it hard to anticipate what reasoning he might apply, which makes the decision to let it proceed post-settlement, with an agreement by both sides not to appeal, high risk. What if he surprises them (either side)? They will be stuck with the outcome whatever it is.

I agree that a federal judge in SDNY has zero interest in deciding a novel issue of CA state law, and suspect this is the main reason he has repeatedly punted on this motion. But he can't just say "look, I don't want to, so motion denied." Blake is entitled to bring the action in SDNY because that's where the underlying claims were made. And federal judges absolutely can, and frequently do, apply the laws of states where they do not reside. They don't like to, but they do, because so many federal cases are premised on diversity jurisdiction or involve multiple jurisdictional issues. So he's going to have to come up with something.

It’s extremely unlikely that Blake will get any damages, especially given that judge has already found 47.1 not applicable to her sexual harassment claims. There is really no chance she is getting treble or punitive damages, especially after her own case was tossed and she chose not to move ahead on the few remaining claims (the most significant of which was subject to a pending motion to dismiss on whether 47.1 app,led).

The fact that she did not prevail on ANY of her claims but particularly the sexual harassment claims, makes it extremely unlikely the Court would award treble or punitive damages. Given that she dropped her claims for literally nothing in return strongly suggests they were fabricated or completely unsupported by evidence.

47.1 does not require that an accuser prevail in a SH lawsuit. It doesn't even require that the accuser bring a lawsuit or other legal action -- it can apply to someone sharing their story of harassment or abuse via the media or other means.

It requires that their allegations be brought in good faith and without malice. Liman already found that Lively brought her claims in good faith. That is specifically why he allowed the retaliation claims to proceed even though he found her SH claims had to be dismissed because of the independent contractor finding. He has not made a determination that would speak to the without malice claim. This would be one reason why they might need a hearing or further briefing, to address the malice issue if he does not feel he has been fully briefed on that specific issue yet.

But I think the two biggest sticking point are (1) whether he will consider the dismissal of Justin's complaint, with prejudice, as a "win" for purposes of 47.1, and (2) how he will approach the CA law issue. As to #1, he may view the dismissal of Justin's complaint as technical only, not a dismissal on the merits. I recall that complaint being a hot mess that they refused to amend before the MTD decision despite the judge basically encouraging them to, and then declined to amend on the few issues he'd dismissed without prejudice after. I'm just not sure how to predict that because I've actually never seen a complaint as messy as that one, against so many defendants and with such egregious group pleading issues. It complicates matters. As to #2, there is speculation on Reddit that he may decide he lacks jurisdiction to handle the 47.1 issue altogether since the underlying matter which brought this all into his courtroom is settled. I don't know, if he did that, if Lively could refile the 47.1 motion in CA court. That would not be an appeal, so wouldn't violate the settlement agreement. But I just don't know.

I think it's interesting some people think this motion is a nothing motion with no teeth. I think for those of us who have been following the case in part out of an interest in harassment and abuse cases generally, the 47.1 issue is one of the most central. The rest of the case is a more classic he said, she said and involves some standard employment law issues. If it didn't involve celebrities it would not be that interesting. But the 47.1 issue is legally novel and could set real precedent. So to me the fact that this motion hasn't been resolved and is still pending is pretty interesting. But YMMV I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

A lot of words to say “I”m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.”

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.

It's not remotely neutral. Blake's potential attorney's fees, should the Court decide to award any, are limited to the fees associated with Lively's cost defending the defamation claim in Baldoni's complaint (i.e. her motion to dismiss). She was seeking $300 million at trial, her fees for that motion are in the thousands. Both Fritz and Freedman have explicitly said this, and a prudent attorney would ascertain the amount at risk before agreeing to anything. Contrary to op's assertion, there is not a huge pot of money at risk, it's a relatively small and known amount.

Further, the Court has already found that 47.1 did not apply to Lively's sexual harassment claims because lack of nexus with California, and WF had a motion pending (and fully briefed) challenging whether her retaliation claims under 47.1 should also be dismissed. Thus, pp saying we have no indication how the Court leans with respect to the applicability of 47.1 is incorrect. It is very possible and perhaps likely that the Court will find that Likely cannot invoke 47.1's attorney's fee provision.

Finally, federal court judges generally are hesitant to address a state law question of first impression, especially from a state where they do not sit. That further increases the odds against an award of fees under 47.1.

To the damages issue, no, you are incorrect. 47.1 entitled a defendant to three kinds of damages: attorneys fees and costs, treble damages, and punitive damages. It's in the statute. Yes, *if* Blake won then the attorneys fees portion would be limited to her fees for defending against the defamation claims against her. But she would also be eligible for treble and punitive damages, which can be in the millions. I didn't say Liman would definitely award them, but if he granted the motion, he could. So there is in fact a large and potentially unknown amount in damages still at stake. 47.1 is designed to punish people who use defamation claims to silence people with good faith abuse claims, so the law is written towards that end. Many of the amicus briefs also touched on this. The motion is not limited to just attorneys fees.

Second, the court did not find anything as to Lively's original 47.1 motion as contained within her motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed it without prejudice. He did discuss the California nexus question when he dismissed her SH claims earlier this year, but he explicitly allowed the 47.1 motion to proceed. So no, he has not indicated how he might rule on the 47.1 motion. And my point was that it's hard to know how he will rule because there is no real case law to reference. It's a new law. This makes it hard to anticipate what reasoning he might apply, which makes the decision to let it proceed post-settlement, with an agreement by both sides not to appeal, high risk. What if he surprises them (either side)? They will be stuck with the outcome whatever it is.

I agree that a federal judge in SDNY has zero interest in deciding a novel issue of CA state law, and suspect this is the main reason he has repeatedly punted on this motion. But he can't just say "look, I don't want to, so motion denied." Blake is entitled to bring the action in SDNY because that's where the underlying claims were made. And federal judges absolutely can, and frequently do, apply the laws of states where they do not reside. They don't like to, but they do, because so many federal cases are premised on diversity jurisdiction or involve multiple jurisdictional issues. So he's going to have to come up with something.

It’s extremely unlikely that Blake will get any damages, especially given that judge has already found 47.1 not applicable to her sexual harassment claims. There is really no chance she is getting treble or punitive damages, especially after her own case was tossed and she chose not to move ahead on the few remaining claims (the most significant of which was subject to a pending motion to dismiss on whether 47.1 app,led).

The fact that she did not prevail on ANY of her claims but particularly the sexual harassment claims, makes it extremely unlikely the Court would award treble or punitive damages. Given that she dropped her claims for literally nothing in return strongly suggests they were fabricated or completely unsupported by evidence.

47.1 does not require that an accuser prevail in a SH lawsuit. It doesn't even require that the accuser bring a lawsuit or other legal action -- it can apply to someone sharing their story of harassment or abuse via the media or other means.

It requires that their allegations be brought in good faith and without malice. Liman already found that Lively brought her claims in good faith. That is specifically why he allowed the retaliation claims to proceed even though he found her SH claims had to be dismissed because of the independent contractor finding. He has not made a determination that would speak to the without malice claim. This would be one reason why they might need a hearing or further briefing, to address the malice issue if he does not feel he has been fully briefed on that specific issue yet.

But I think the two biggest sticking point are (1) whether he will consider the dismissal of Justin's complaint, with prejudice, as a "win" for purposes of 47.1, and (2) how he will approach the CA law issue. As to #1, he may view the dismissal of Justin's complaint as technical only, not a dismissal on the merits. I recall that complaint being a hot mess that they refused to amend before the MTD decision despite the judge basically encouraging them to, and then declined to amend on the few issues he'd dismissed without prejudice after. I'm just not sure how to predict that because I've actually never seen a complaint as messy as that one, against so many defendants and with such egregious group pleading issues. It complicates matters. As to #2, there is speculation on Reddit that he may decide he lacks jurisdiction to handle the 47.1 issue altogether since the underlying matter which brought this all into his courtroom is settled. I don't know, if he did that, if Lively could refile the 47.1 motion in CA court. That would not be an appeal, so wouldn't violate the settlement agreement. But I just don't know.

I think it's interesting some people think this motion is a nothing motion with no teeth. I think for those of us who have been following the case in part out of an interest in harassment and abuse cases generally, the 47.1 issue is one of the most central. The rest of the case is a more classic he said, she said and involves some standard employment law issues. If it didn't involve celebrities it would not be that interesting. But the 47.1 issue is legally novel and could set real precedent. So to me the fact that this motion hasn't been resolved and is still pending is pretty interesting. But YMMV I guess.

Give it a rest.she won't prevail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw on Reddit that Justin is rumored to be setting up a big sit down interview with someone to "tell his story." Curious if it will be a legit journalist or, like, Megyn Kelly. Or worse, one of the CCs that Freedman is always chatting with. It would be pretty funny to me if Justin's big interview was only available on TikTok and Youtube.

He is also rumored to be writing a book.

As someone who at one point watched a few episodes of Baldoni's podcast to better understand who the heck he was, I would just like to let people know he sucks and is very annoying and if the upshot of this case settling is that we hear more from him, this is a net negative for everyone. That doesn't mean I want to hear from Blake (I don't!) but I think a lot of people have basically never heard Justin speak at length as himself and not in character for a movie. It is grating. There is a reason a lot of people associated with this movie (not just Blake) wound up just not liking or respecting him.

I don't think he really matters. He's basically a figurehead who could be anyone that people would support over Blake. People on here talk about others being "Pro Baldoni" but it's really being more "Anti Lively" in this scenario. Sure, maybe he's annoying. Who cares? Anyone who was in his shoes being slandered as a sexual predator and having their career destroyed by much more powerful people was always going to have support. I'd venture to say most supporters of his didn't even really know wiho he was before this, I certainly didn't. But I am on his side even if he's a little grating.

He certainly has done nothing that set people off for the past two years, unlike Blake and Ryan. Further, his texts/emails sound like the work of a normal person while Blake and Ryan manage to sound like complete psychos whenever they text or email.

I disagree his text/emails sound like the work of a "normal person." Agree Blake and Ryan sound insufferable but so does Baldoni. It's just different versions of insufferable.

Ryan is very "Hollywood" -- it's all "oh my god, you're amazing", "no, YOU'RE amazing", "omg stop!" And little inside jokes and a lot of confidence. Yes, it would irritate me and I do not invest time in people like that in my life. It does not come off as sincere.

But Justin strikes me as a vulnerable narcissist. He uses vulnerability to get people to like him (and he is desperate for people to like him, this especially comes across when he's telling a bunch of different people what they want to hear and it all conflicts). I find his male feminist schtick to be part of this same pattern. He's like "I realize I'm imperfect, I have been the patriarchy, but now I understand and I'm on the side of women." But then he uses that confession/vulnerability like a shield, so it's like you're not allowed to criticize or even just say "hey this bothered me" without him falling apart into tears and apologies (so now the whole conversation is about *his* feelings). I have known people like this and it is VERY toxic. They are virtually impossible to work with. There is no accountability for their own actions because they just act like the victim of their own behavior and choices all the time. It's really exhausting.

I actually found many of Blake's emails genuine. I thought the exchange between her and Taylor where Blake says she noticed that Taylor has felt distant and wanted to reach out, and Taylor tells her that Blake had been just obsessively discussing the case, and then Blake sends a jokey form letter as a form of apology -- that felt very real to me. Whatever their friendship is now, that is exactly who real friends connect and communicate after years, and there was real vulnerability there. I also have read many of the texts between Blake and Jenny, and Blake and Colleen, and there is realness there. There was one I saw recently where Jenny was asking Blake if Colleen was mad at her (at Jenny I mean) because she'd seemed to have a weird vibe at a recent event, and Blake's response was very empathetic towards both Colleen and Jenny, basically noting how Colleen seems to deal with stress and how overwhelming everything had been and reassuring Jenny. It was sweet! She seems like a good friend. Also another back and forth between Blake and Colleen expressing how meaningful it was for them to work on the project together. It sounds like two working moms discussing how hard it can be to go to work away from your kids when it doesn't feel rewarding, and thanking each other for being supportive in the process and making it rewarding for one another. Again, that one feels real to me.

But I think people don't read that stuff. They just read like the khaleesi email (which, yes, is embarrassing and winds up sounding needy and dumb) and the stuff from Ryan and decide they know enough.

I actually like Blake more after reading a bunch of her private texts and emails than I did before, and I don't think that is true of most people.

And yes, I've read way too much stuff associated with this case and yes I'm obsessed with all of it and yes it's unhealthy. Whatever. You're here too.

Blake’s voice note to Justin that was released in one of the dumps a few months ago, the one that starts,” I hope you’re so well….”

It literally chilled me to my bone. Because I know people like that. It’s incredibly manipulative and almost every interaction with Justin or with Taylor, Blake immediately references Ryan. She’s very dependent on his power.

But more than that, Ryan and Blake both have a way just making you feel like you’re very close. And at that point she had just had the baby and they had met for the first time in December so these people had known each other maybe a month? And she’s talking about how much she trusts him and how safe she feels, how she didn’t want to bring this to his attention, but Ryan was like “no you’re friends, you should.” And let’s remember these people were coworkers. He was her director and costar. Just very weird behavior to act as if they have a deep, vulnerable m, trusting relationship. You could also spot from a mile away the way that they started asking for favors they were seeing how far they could go to push this guy. Asking for the filming locations to be changed, asking for the shoot schedule to be changed. Within a couple of weeks.

I found the texts with Taylor not genuine at all. It sounds like they have a very superficial relationship. I’m not surprised that they’re not speaking anymore.

The phrase "I hope you're well" chilled you "to the bone"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

A lot of words to say “I”m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.”

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.

It's not remotely neutral. Blake's potential attorney's fees, should the Court decide to award any, are limited to the fees associated with Lively's cost defending the defamation claim in Baldoni's complaint (i.e. her motion to dismiss). She was seeking $300 million at trial, her fees for that motion are in the thousands. Both Fritz and Freedman have explicitly said this, and a prudent attorney would ascertain the amount at risk before agreeing to anything. Contrary to op's assertion, there is not a huge pot of money at risk, it's a relatively small and known amount.

Further, the Court has already found that 47.1 did not apply to Lively's sexual harassment claims because lack of nexus with California, and WF had a motion pending (and fully briefed) challenging whether her retaliation claims under 47.1 should also be dismissed. Thus, pp saying we have no indication how the Court leans with respect to the applicability of 47.1 is incorrect. It is very possible and perhaps likely that the Court will find that Likely cannot invoke 47.1's attorney's fee provision.

Finally, federal court judges generally are hesitant to address a state law question of first impression, especially from a state where they do not sit. That further increases the odds against an award of fees under 47.1.

To the damages issue, no, you are incorrect. 47.1 entitled a defendant to three kinds of damages: attorneys fees and costs, treble damages, and punitive damages. It's in the statute. Yes, *if* Blake won then the attorneys fees portion would be limited to her fees for defending against the defamation claims against her. But she would also be eligible for treble and punitive damages, which can be in the millions. I didn't say Liman would definitely award them, but if he granted the motion, he could. So there is in fact a large and potentially unknown amount in damages still at stake. 47.1 is designed to punish people who use defamation claims to silence people with good faith abuse claims, so the law is written towards that end. Many of the amicus briefs also touched on this. The motion is not limited to just attorneys fees.

Second, the court did not find anything as to Lively's original 47.1 motion as contained within her motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed it without prejudice. He did discuss the California nexus question when he dismissed her SH claims earlier this year, but he explicitly allowed the 47.1 motion to proceed. So no, he has not indicated how he might rule on the 47.1 motion. And my point was that it's hard to know how he will rule because there is no real case law to reference. It's a new law. This makes it hard to anticipate what reasoning he might apply, which makes the decision to let it proceed post-settlement, with an agreement by both sides not to appeal, high risk. What if he surprises them (either side)? They will be stuck with the outcome whatever it is.

I agree that a federal judge in SDNY has zero interest in deciding a novel issue of CA state law, and suspect this is the main reason he has repeatedly punted on this motion. But he can't just say "look, I don't want to, so motion denied." Blake is entitled to bring the action in SDNY because that's where the underlying claims were made. And federal judges absolutely can, and frequently do, apply the laws of states where they do not reside. They don't like to, but they do, because so many federal cases are premised on diversity jurisdiction or involve multiple jurisdictional issues. So he's going to have to come up with something.

It’s extremely unlikely that Blake will get any damages, especially given that judge has already found 47.1 not applicable to her sexual harassment claims. There is really no chance she is getting treble or punitive damages, especially after her own case was tossed and she chose not to move ahead on the few remaining claims (the most significant of which was subject to a pending motion to dismiss on whether 47.1 app,led).

The fact that she did not prevail on ANY of her claims but particularly the sexual harassment claims, makes it extremely unlikely the Court would award treble or punitive damages. Given that she dropped her claims for literally nothing in return strongly suggests they were fabricated or completely unsupported by evidence.

47.1 does not require that an accuser prevail in a SH lawsuit. It doesn't even require that the accuser bring a lawsuit or other legal action -- it can apply to someone sharing their story of harassment or abuse via the media or other means.

It requires that their allegations be brought in good faith and without malice. Liman already found that Lively brought her claims in good faith. That is specifically why he allowed the retaliation claims to proceed even though he found her SH claims had to be dismissed because of the independent contractor finding. He has not made a determination that would speak to the without malice claim. This would be one reason why they might need a hearing or further briefing, to address the malice issue if he does not feel he has been fully briefed on that specific issue yet.

But I think the two biggest sticking point are (1) whether he will consider the dismissal of Justin's complaint, with prejudice, as a "win" for purposes of 47.1, and (2) how he will approach the CA law issue. As to #1, he may view the dismissal of Justin's complaint as technical only, not a dismissal on the merits. I recall that complaint being a hot mess that they refused to amend before the MTD decision despite the judge basically encouraging them to, and then declined to amend on the few issues he'd dismissed without prejudice after. I'm just not sure how to predict that because I've actually never seen a complaint as messy as that one, against so many defendants and with such egregious group pleading issues. It complicates matters. As to #2, there is speculation on Reddit that he may decide he lacks jurisdiction to handle the 47.1 issue altogether since the underlying matter which brought this all into his courtroom is settled. I don't know, if he did that, if Lively could refile the 47.1 motion in CA court. That would not be an appeal, so wouldn't violate the settlement agreement. But I just don't know.

I think it's interesting some people think this motion is a nothing motion with no teeth. I think for those of us who have been following the case in part out of an interest in harassment and abuse cases generally, the 47.1 issue is one of the most central. The rest of the case is a more classic he said, she said and involves some standard employment law issues. If it didn't involve celebrities it would not be that interesting. But the 47.1 issue is legally novel and could set real precedent. So to me the fact that this motion hasn't been resolved and is still pending is pretty interesting. But YMMV I guess.

You have been overly optimistic about her case all along.

She cannot refile in California court, pursuant to the settlement documents, her claims were dismissed with prejudice. She has one shot at the apple with him.

The easiest course of action is for him to follow his earlier rulings and say that 47.1 does not apply. He could also find her failure to prevail on a single one of her claims precludes her meeting the "good faiih and without malice" standard. Personally, I think he has no interest in messing with 47.1 and will say it doesn't apply. There are some reports that he said something about it not being applicable to Gottlieb at the last hearing.

[Anonymous]

Huh, lively's leas attorney is on The Town, the Matt Bellamy podcast about Hollywood. I'm a long time listener of the town and actually a little surprised because I thought Bellamy was very over this case.

Anyway, listening now, just letting people know if they are interesting.

[Anonymous]

I saw a comment on IG where someone said shes pursuing the 47.1 because her lawyers need to get paid because they (probably) took this case on contingency. How likely is that ?
Additionally, Baldoni lawyer explained to a podcaster why the 47.1 is laughable. Her legal bills are the result of her decision to sue which led to the following :

-Her failure to provide her medical record when asked by the defense which led to drop two claims of emotional distress

- Ten claims of the remaining thirteen were dismissed, effectively ending Baldoni's personal involvement in the case

-The settlement which came with no monetary compensation for her.

She and her so-called billionaire (he's not) husband should lick their wounds and call it a day .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I saw a comment on IG where someone said shes pursuing the 47.1 because her lawyers need to get paid because they (probably) took this case on contingency. How likely is that ?
Additionally, Baldoni lawyer explained to a podcaster why the 47.1 is laughable. Her legal bills are the result of her decision to sue which led to the following :

-Her failure to provide her medical record when asked by the defense which led to drop two claims of emotional distress

- Ten claims of the remaining thirteen were dismissed, effectively ending Baldoni's personal involvement in the case

-The settlement which came with no monetary compensation for her.

She and her so-called billionaire (he's not) husband should lick their wounds and call it a day .

There is zero chance that her lawyers took this case on contingency. I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I saw on Reddit that Justin is rumored to be setting up a big sit down interview with someone to "tell his story." Curious if it will be a legit journalist or, like, Megyn Kelly.

I am dying to know what on earth kind of confidentiality language was in that settlement. This is so bizarre.

NAG explained in a video, with a big caveat that she obviously hasn’t seen the settlement, but what she thinks could be a possibility is that they are allowed to tell the story of their life, how the trial affected them, how the shoot affected them etc. within certain parameters, without discussing things like details of the settlement or anything like that. So they can talk within certain parameters.

Because Justin was the one accused, it makes sense that he would want to tell his story. I imagine Blake if she is at all listening to her people which I know she’s in the habit of not doing, should just try to move on from this.

There is no non disclosure clause. Baldoni can talk about whatever he wants. It’s an insanely defendant friendly settlement. She had to be beyond desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh, lively's leas attorney is on The Town, the Matt Bellamy podcast about Hollywood. I'm a long time listener of the town and actually a little surprised because I thought Bellamy was very over this case.

Anyway, listening now, just letting people know if they are interesting.

This is a really good interview and worth listening to whomever you support. Matt Bellamy asked really tough questions, he kind of grills him. He did well in parts and sounded kind of weak in parts (I was not convinced by his characterization that this was a big win for Lively, but did find his discussion of the 47.1 motion compelling, I recommend it). This is a better, more informative interview than most of the ones Freedman has done this week. I think other than TMZ who asked him a couple tough questions (which I think he handled weird), Freedman has done a bunch of soft ball interviews and still managed to sound kind of nuts. Gottlieb at least sounds like a sane, competent lawyer even if I do think the settlement was a blow to Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh, lively's leas attorney is on The Town, the Matt Bellamy podcast about Hollywood. I'm a long time listener of the town and actually a little surprised because I thought Bellamy was very over this case.

Anyway, listening now, just letting people know if they are interesting.

This is a really good interview and worth listening to whomever you support. Matt Bellamy asked really tough questions, he kind of grills him. He did well in parts and sounded kind of weak in parts (I was not convinced by his characterization that this was a big win for Lively, but did find his discussion of the 47.1 motion compelling, I recommend it). This is a better, more informative interview than most of the ones Freedman has done this week. I think other than TMZ who asked him a couple tough questions (which I think he handled weird), Freedman has done a bunch of soft ball interviews and still managed to sound kind of nuts. Gottlieb at least sounds like a sane, competent lawyer even if I do think the settlement was a blow to Blake.

It’s so embarrassing for Gottlieb. He is trying to claim she gave up a potential damage claim for $300 million and a chance to tell her story to a jury “to focus” on the 47.1 attorneys fee for the MTD that has been fully briefed and awaiting decision for months. Keep in mind that she was going to take her retaliation claim to a jury, and also was pursing attorney’s fees under 47.1 as of Sunday. It was never an either/or scenario. Utter humiliation for him spinning bullshit that makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh, lively's leas attorney is on The Town, the Matt Bellamy podcast about Hollywood. I'm a long time listener of the town and actually a little surprised because I thought Bellamy was very over this case.

Anyway, listening now, just letting people know if they are interesting.

This is a really good interview and worth listening to whomever you support. Matt Bellamy asked really tough questions, he kind of grills him. He did well in parts and sounded kind of weak in parts (I was not convinced by his characterization that this was a big win for Lively, but did find his discussion of the 47.1 motion compelling, I recommend it). This is a better, more informative interview than most of the ones Freedman has done this week. I think other than TMZ who asked him a couple tough questions (which I think he handled weird), Freedman has done a bunch of soft ball interviews and still managed to sound kind of nuts. Gottlieb at least sounds like a sane, competent lawyer even if I do think the settlement was a blow to Blake.

I am listening now, thank you to the person who pointed it out. Belloni is really good, asking tough questions. It is obviously a hard settlement to defend. He refuses to answer any question about the financials. He thinks it was irresponsible for the other side to run around talking before the settlement was signed and Belloni is like, "come on, you knew that was going to happen!" I'm more sympathetic to Lively, but it was pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw on Reddit that Justin is rumored to be setting up a big sit down interview with someone to "tell his story." Curious if it will be a legit journalist or, like, Megyn Kelly. Or worse, one of the CCs that Freedman is always chatting with. It would be pretty funny to me if Justin's big interview was only available on TikTok and Youtube.

He is also rumored to be writing a book.

As someone who at one point watched a few episodes of Baldoni's podcast to better understand who the heck he was, I would just like to let people know he sucks and is very annoying and if the upshot of this case settling is that we hear more from him, this is a net negative for everyone. That doesn't mean I want to hear from Blake (I don't!) but I think a lot of people have basically never heard Justin speak at length as himself and not in character for a movie. It is grating. There is a reason a lot of people associated with this movie (not just Blake) wound up just not liking or respecting him.

I don't think he really matters. He's basically a figurehead who could be anyone that people would support over Blake. People on here talk about others being "Pro Baldoni" but it's really being more "Anti Lively" in this scenario. Sure, maybe he's annoying. Who cares? Anyone who was in his shoes being slandered as a sexual predator and having their career destroyed by much more powerful people was always going to have support. I'd venture to say most supporters of his didn't even really know wiho he was before this, I certainly didn't. But I am on his side even if he's a little grating.

He certainly has done nothing that set people off for the past two years, unlike Blake and Ryan. Further, his texts/emails sound like the work of a normal person while Blake and Ryan manage to sound like complete psychos whenever they text or email.

I disagree his text/emails sound like the work of a "normal person." Agree Blake and Ryan sound insufferable but so does Baldoni. It's just different versions of insufferable.

Ryan is very "Hollywood" -- it's all "oh my god, you're amazing", "no, YOU'RE amazing", "omg stop!" And little inside jokes and a lot of confidence. Yes, it would irritate me and I do not invest time in people like that in my life. It does not come off as sincere.

But Justin strikes me as a vulnerable narcissist. He uses vulnerability to get people to like him (and he is desperate for people to like him, this especially comes across when he's telling a bunch of different people what they want to hear and it all conflicts). I find his male feminist schtick to be part of this same pattern. He's like "I realize I'm imperfect, I have been the patriarchy, but now I understand and I'm on the side of women." But then he uses that confession/vulnerability like a shield, so it's like you're not allowed to criticize or even just say "hey this bothered me" without him falling apart into tears and apologies (so now the whole conversation is about *his* feelings). I have known people like this and it is VERY toxic. They are virtually impossible to work with. There is no accountability for their own actions because they just act like the victim of their own behavior and choices all the time. It's really exhausting.

I actually found many of Blake's emails genuine. I thought the exchange between her and Taylor where Blake says she noticed that Taylor has felt distant and wanted to reach out, and Taylor tells her that Blake had been just obsessively discussing the case, and then Blake sends a jokey form letter as a form of apology -- that felt very real to me. Whatever their friendship is now, that is exactly who real friends connect and communicate after years, and there was real vulnerability there. I also have read many of the texts between Blake and Jenny, and Blake and Colleen, and there is realness there. There was one I saw recently where Jenny was asking Blake if Colleen was mad at her (at Jenny I mean) because she'd seemed to have a weird vibe at a recent event, and Blake's response was very empathetic towards both Colleen and Jenny, basically noting how Colleen seems to deal with stress and how overwhelming everything had been and reassuring Jenny. It was sweet! She seems like a good friend. Also another back and forth between Blake and Colleen expressing how meaningful it was for them to work on the project together. It sounds like two working moms discussing how hard it can be to go to work away from your kids when it doesn't feel rewarding, and thanking each other for being supportive in the process and making it rewarding for one another. Again, that one feels real to me.

But I think people don't read that stuff. They just read like the khaleesi email (which, yes, is embarrassing and winds up sounding needy and dumb) and the stuff from Ryan and decide they know enough.

I actually like Blake more after reading a bunch of her private texts and emails than I did before, and I don't think that is true of most people.

And yes, I've read way too much stuff associated with this case and yes I'm obsessed with all of it and yes it's unhealthy. Whatever. You're here too.

Blake’s voice note to Justin that was released in one of the dumps a few months ago, the one that starts,” I hope you’re so well….”

It literally chilled me to my bone. Because I know people like that. It’s incredibly manipulative and almost every interaction with Justin or with Taylor, Blake immediately references Ryan. She’s very dependent on his power.

But more than that, Ryan and Blake both have a way just making you feel like you’re very close. And at that point she had just had the baby and they had met for the first time in December so these people had known each other maybe a month? And she’s talking about how much she trusts him and how safe she feels, how she didn’t want to bring this to his attention, but Ryan was like “no you’re friends, you should.” And let’s remember these people were coworkers. He was her director and costar. Just very weird behavior to act as if they have a deep, vulnerable m, trusting relationship. You could also spot from a mile away the way that they started asking for favors they were seeing how far they could go to push this guy. Asking for the filming locations to be changed, asking for the shoot schedule to be changed. Within a couple of weeks.

I found the texts with Taylor not genuine at all. It sounds like they have a very superficial relationship. I’m not surprised that they’re not speaking anymore.

The phrase "I hope you're well" chilled you "to the bone"?

Nope, not what I said. The voice note that started with I hope you are well.