Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

Disagree. Litigants have a first amendment right to talk to the media and they frequently do. I have no idea where you’re getting this idea that there’s some default to self-gag once litigation starts. It’s just not true. I don’t think there’s anything at all unusual about what he’s done legally or strategically. Some PPs and apparently you as well seem to have the totally incorrect notion that the “normal” thing to do is “develop your case” in silence.

and you haven’t been reading this thread if you haven’t seen all the dumb*ss stuff people are writing about sexual harassment claims.

Wow, so glad the lawyers I face in court aren't like this, I'd tear my hair out.

I never said there was a "default to self-gag once litigation starts." Or anything like that.

I said the case was unusual because of the high profile of the litigants and the high level of interest in the press, which might induce a judge to grant a protective order regarding evidence only (not restricting the ability of litigants or their lawyers to talk to the press, but just concerning disclosure of video, text, email, documents, and other evidence that will come out during the discovery process). It's ridiculous I'm having to restate this because if you actually read my post above, you would see this is exactly what I said. Not that the "normal" thing to do is develop your case in silence.

Next time, please try actually reading my post before responding, and don't argue against things I didn't even say. It's unproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

Lively has requested a protective order to limit Baldoni's disclosures to the press. It is a motion for hearing and protective order. It is being reported in the press as a "gag order."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/01/22/blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-gag-order-justin-baldoni/77888098007/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

Discovery has nothing to do with what he’s released. Discovery is the process of requesting documents and testimony from the other party. He’s releasing film already in his possession.

Wow, so: you are not a lawyer.

Noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

+1. protective order is standard and applies to confidential info provided in discovery. I don’t think it applies to docs the litigants have on their own. Gag order is much more unusual and I don’t see the justification here - although that doesn’t mean she won’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

+1. protective order is standard and applies to confidential info provided in discovery. I don’t think it applies to docs the litigants have on their own. Gag order is much more unusual and I don’t see the justification here - although that doesn’t mean she won’t get it.

Again. Lively has specifically requested a protective order. It is being referred to as a "gag order" in the media.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/01/22/blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-gag-order-justin-baldoni/77888098007/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

Discovery has nothing to do with what he’s released. Discovery is the process of requesting documents and testimony from the other party. He’s releasing film already in his possession.

Wow, so: you are not a lawyer.

Noted.

um no, they are correct. Typically there will be a protective order if there are confidential materials provided in discovery but there is no blanket protection and not everything is confidential. That footage certainly was not. That would be unconstitutional. legal proceedings are not secret in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

Discovery has nothing to do with what he’s released. Discovery is the process of requesting documents and testimony from the other party. He’s releasing film already in his possession.

Wow, so: you are not a lawyer.

Noted.

I a, a lawyer, but it’s obvious from your description of “normal discovery” that you are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

+1. protective order is standard and applies to confidential info provided in discovery. I don’t think it applies to docs the litigants have on their own. Gag order is much more unusual and I don’t see the justification here - although that doesn’t mean she won’t get it.

Again. Lively has specifically requested a protective order. It is being referred to as a "gag order" in the media.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/01/22/blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-gag-order-justin-baldoni/77888098007/

It’s a gag order. It’s not a protective order over materials provided in discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

+1. protective order is standard and applies to confidential info provided in discovery. I don’t think it applies to docs the litigants have on their own. Gag order is much more unusual and I don’t see the justification here - although that doesn’t mean she won’t get it.

Again. Lively has specifically requested a protective order. It is being referred to as a "gag order" in the media.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/01/22/blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-gag-order-justin-baldoni/77888098007/

The media is correct, you are not. She wants an order controlling what his lawyer can say, which is what a gag order is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

Lively has requested a protective order to limit Baldoni's disclosures to the press. It is a motion for hearing and protective order. It is being reported in the press as a "gag order."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/01/22/blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-gag-order-justin-baldoni/77888098007/

lol Lively really is desperate!!!

[Anonymous]

Poll: Do you believe Justin Baldoni sexually harassed Blake Lively? Put aside who has the better argument, who will score legal victories, etc. What is your personal verdict?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poll: Do you believe Justin Baldoni sexually harassed Blake Lively? Put aside who has the better argument, who will score legal victories, etc. What is your personal verdict?

I’m just a middle aged mom but I’m not convinced of her claim.

[Anonymous]

The last 7 posts have to be the same lonely teenage boy hopped up on illegally procured stims, yes? Only rational explanation for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last 7 posts have to be the same lonely teenage boy hopped up on illegally procured stims, yes? Only rational explanation for this.

Oh yeah, sure, a teenage boy on dc urban mom who loves to weigh in on legal matters and celeb gossip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last 7 posts have to be the same lonely teenage boy hopped up on illegally procured stims, yes? Only rational explanation for this.

I'm just a sexual harassment and rape victim and so I find her claims and her character offensive.