Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever did the artwork made her look like Goliath…

But she's holding the sling?

They are both holding slings.

Objectively, they make her look crazy with her hair and her expression. Baldoni looks attractive and not crazy. Given that it's an AI generated "artwork" and not a photo, I do actually think it's mean to her. The article didn't feel biased (I think the argument in the article is stupid -- either he harassed her or not and his religions is beside the point -- but it doesn't feel biased towards either of them) but the artwork is meanspirited and weird IMO. I think especially because I'm a woman and all the men in the picture look relatively normal and then the one woman looks deranged, it bugs me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like she didn’t like the THR article that was released this weekend:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/justin-baldoni-bahai-blake-lively-legal-feud-1236142565/

According to … your butt, apparently! We’re not even pretending to cite real sources or be fair anymore lol.

it’s a real cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like she didn’t like the THR article that was released this weekend:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/justin-baldoni-bahai-blake-lively-legal-feud-1236142565/

According to … your butt, apparently! We’re not even pretending to cite real sources or be fair anymore lol.

it’s a real cover.

DP but obviously PP is referring to you saying Lively didn't like the article and then not linking to any source for that assertion. The cover/article have already been posted in this thread.

[Anonymous]

There are articles saying that she didn’t like it and that THR should be ashamed of itself.”

Look it up

[Anonymous]

The article is pro Baldoni fluff that attempts to explain things away and get ahead of the Jenny Slate complaint, so from that I can infer Lively wouldn't like it. I don't need anonymous sources to tell me that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article is pro Baldoni fluff that attempts to explain things away and get ahead of the Jenny Slate complaint, so from that I can infer Lively wouldn't like it. I don't need anonymous sources to tell me that.

Well it’s out there on the site.

I don’t think JS’s complaint is going anywhere. Hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers are asking again for the subpoenas to be quashed https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.93.0.pdf

They say Lively's counsel has agreed to withdraw requests for “All Documents”; “data logs”; (c) “cell site location information" but that the request for all call and texts logs remains overbroad, as it would make it possible to reverse lookup everyone they've been in contact with, including physicians, lawyers, family, and friends. They want it limited to only certain phone numbers. I've made similar arguments in this thread.

Lawyer here and I agree. Freedman will get this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is pro Baldoni fluff that attempts to explain things away and get ahead of the Jenny Slate complaint, so from that I can infer Lively wouldn't like it. I don't need anonymous sources to tell me that.

Well it’s out there on the site.

I don’t think JS’s complaint is going anywhere. Hearsay.

It's not hearsay if she is willing to testify to it, which Lively's amended complaint says she is.

The THR article is very nonspecific about what happened, it's weird. I don't understand why they could report on the complaint but not just explain what it was that Heath supposedly said that upset Slate. It's worded in a weird way that makes it seem odd that Slate would file a complaint, and then fails to explain why she filed it. Or what was done, if anything, as a result. Just a lot of missing pieces.

It's also bizarre because THR has been changing the wording in the article specifically regarding Slate's complaint without saying they are doing it. Originally it said she filed a complaint with Sony. Then they changed the wording to say that "word got back" to Sony about the incident but didn't mention a complaint at all. Then it got changed back to complaint but with different wording from the first time. And THR didn't alert readers to any of these edits, they were just captured by eagle-eyed readers on Reddit.

It's making me wonder who THR is getting this info from, who has a copy of the complaint, and who might be calling THR and saying "you better change this wording" and why.

[Anonymous]

Then it becomes his word vs her word. Again, a wash if no physical evidence to corroborate. Filing a complaint is not a legal “gotcha”. It’s simply that someone filed a complaint or discussed feelings of discomfort.

I could file a complaint. So much more is needed to make this into something, and it’s not there. Good try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then it becomes his word vs her word. Again, a wash if no physical evidence to corroborate. Filing a complaint is not a legal “gotcha”. It’s simply that someone filed a complaint or discussed feelings of discomfort.

I could file a complaint. So much more is needed to make this into something, and it’s not there. Good try.

It’s smoke and mirrors nonsense. They have nothing. What a crash out by Ryan, Blake and Ari.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then it becomes his word vs her word. Again, a wash if no physical evidence to corroborate. Filing a complaint is not a legal “gotcha”. It’s simply that someone filed a complaint or discussed feelings of discomfort.

I could file a complaint. So much more is needed to make this into something, and it’s not there. Good try.

Testimony is evidence. Writing what happened in a complaint is evidence. Many discrimination or harassment cases will not have more than that. It's unlikely every workplace interaction is audio or video recorded. Filing a complaint is not a magical gotcha, but it is evidence a jury can consider and weigh its credibility and relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it becomes his word vs her word. Again, a wash if no physical evidence to corroborate. Filing a complaint is not a legal “gotcha”. It’s simply that someone filed a complaint or discussed feelings of discomfort.

I could file a complaint. So much more is needed to make this into something, and it’s not there. Good try.

Testimony is evidence. Writing what happened in a complaint is evidence. Many discrimination or harassment cases will not have more than that. It's unlikely every workplace interaction is audio or video recorded. Filing a complaint is not a magical gotcha, but it is evidence a jury can consider and weigh its credibility and relevance.

+1, even in a true he said/she said, the parties can testify and jury could find SH based on nothing but testimony and credibility if the witnesses.

But this is already shaping up to not be a he said/she said -- there are additional witnesses to almost every allegation in Lively's complaint. There are emails and texts, contracts (including a nudity rider), a script and hours of film footage of the set. Also, because some of the alleged harassment occurred during filming if scenes with kissing and touching, as well as simulated nudity, there will undoubtedly be expert testimony to determine where the line for harassment exists in that setting. I know a lot of non-actors believe that in agreeing to do the movie, Lively agreed to all of it, but there's actually a ton of contract and employment law regarding film sets, and the standard for what is reasonable may be informed by experts such as intimacy coordinators and others who can speak to what is typical, or "industry standard" in those situations.

That's why many of us who are lawyers are interested in the case. If it really were a classic "he said, she said" it would have pretty minimal interest for the legal community. Instead it's a fascinating confluence of employment, discrimination, first amendment, and business torts. Plus the litigants are famous, one of the lawyers is worthy of his own network drama based on his life/personality, and the litigation concerns not one but two of the biggest box office hits of last summer. Way bigger than a he said/she said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it becomes his word vs her word. Again, a wash if no physical evidence to corroborate. Filing a complaint is not a legal “gotcha”. It’s simply that someone filed a complaint or discussed feelings of discomfort.

I could file a complaint. So much more is needed to make this into something, and it’s not there. Good try.

Testimony is evidence. Writing what happened in a complaint is evidence. Many discrimination or harassment cases will not have more than that. It's unlikely every workplace interaction is audio or video recorded. Filing a complaint is not a magical gotcha, but it is evidence a jury can consider and weigh its credibility and relevance.

+1, even in a true he said/she said, the parties can testify and jury could find SH based on nothing but testimony and credibility if the witnesses.

But this is already shaping up to not be a he said/she said -- there are additional witnesses to almost every allegation in Lively's complaint. There are emails and texts, contracts (including a nudity rider), a script and hours of film footage of the set. Also, because some of the alleged harassment occurred during filming if scenes with kissing and touching, as well as simulated nudity, there will undoubtedly be expert testimony to determine where the line for harassment exists in that setting. I know a lot of non-actors believe that in agreeing to do the movie, Lively agreed to all of it, but there's actually a ton of contract and employment law regarding film sets, and the standard for what is reasonable may be informed by experts such as intimacy coordinators and others who can speak to what is typical, or "industry standard" in those situations.

That's why many of us who are lawyers are interested in the case. If it really were a classic "he said, she said" it would have pretty minimal interest for the legal community. Instead it's a fascinating confluence of employment, discrimination, first amendment, and business torts. Plus the litigants are famous, one of the lawyers is worthy of his own network drama based on his life/personality, and the litigation concerns not one but two of the biggest box office hits of last summer. Way bigger than a he said/she said!

I thinking not, unless you are a lawyer on her case. I think you are overblowing what you think is good content. JS would have to assert something pretty crazy to alter anyone’s mind on what was said as being a form of SH. And still that is not enough.

BL wouldn’t be trying this hard if she had a slam dunk case. I think it’s nice to have lawyers talk and think about this case, but it’s not there, and BL/RR know it. At this point, I think they are using JS testimony for settlement purposes and nothing more.

Let it proceed. Not going to be a trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it becomes his word vs her word. Again, a wash if no physical evidence to corroborate. Filing a complaint is not a legal “gotcha”. It’s simply that someone filed a complaint or discussed feelings of discomfort.

I could file a complaint. So much more is needed to make this into something, and it’s not there. Good try.

Testimony is evidence. Writing what happened in a complaint is evidence. Many discrimination or harassment cases will not have more than that. It's unlikely every workplace interaction is audio or video recorded. Filing a complaint is not a magical gotcha, but it is evidence a jury can consider and weigh its credibility and relevance.

+1, even in a true he said/she said, the parties can testify and jury could find SH based on nothing but testimony and credibility if the witnesses.

But this is already shaping up to not be a he said/she said -- there are additional witnesses to almost every allegation in Lively's complaint. There are emails and texts, contracts (including a nudity rider), a script and hours of film footage of the set. Also, because some of the alleged harassment occurred during filming if scenes with kissing and touching, as well as simulated nudity, there will undoubtedly be expert testimony to determine where the line for harassment exists in that setting. I know a lot of non-actors believe that in agreeing to do the movie, Lively agreed to all of it, but there's actually a ton of contract and employment law regarding film sets, and the standard for what is reasonable may be informed by experts such as intimacy coordinators and others who can speak to what is typical, or "industry standard" in those situations.

That's why many of us who are lawyers are interested in the case. If it really were a classic "he said, she said" it would have pretty minimal interest for the legal community. Instead it's a fascinating confluence of employment, discrimination, first amendment, and business torts. Plus the litigants are famous, one of the lawyers is worthy of his own network drama based on his life/personality, and the litigation concerns not one but two of the biggest box office hits of last summer. Way bigger than a he said/she said!

The challenge though is there is no evidence at this point of an actual HR complaint. It seems like Blake is saying she asked Sony, they told her they couldn’t handle it, and then she kind of threw her hands up and didn’t know what to do. Which I find a little hard to believe, considering she has a big legal and management team that could’ve helped her navigate.

As you said, the evidence will be really important here, so evidence of HR complaint would certainly be helpful, but she hasn’t revealed them yet even in redacted form.

It seems like the January 4 all hands meeting that was the forum for going over a lot of the complaints that is the basis for this case, Baldoni‘s team was specifically told they were not sexual in nature, it was not supposed to be a meeting that required HR, and that they were totally blindsided by the list. So I feel like that weakens her case somewhat.

It would be much stronger if the union got involved or she had used appropriate channels, it doesn’t look like she did. There is some speculation that Jenny filed an HR complaint, but I’ve heard mixed things about that, that she did, that Sony heard she was going to but she didn’t, and blah blah blah, but I’m not seeing evidence of a formal complaint. I’m also not seeing evidence if she did file that is would fit the nature of a sexual harassment complaint.

[Anonymous]

Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.