Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is a fun little twist.

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/blake-lively-hires-cia-alum-crisis-pr-justin-baldoni-legal-battle-1236323621/

Blake has hired a crisis PR firm with CIA ties.

Anyone have any clue how much this is costing them?

Looks like yet another winning strategy! Maybe she can get Mossad on the case!

“Who destroyed my popularity?”

“Ms. Lively, on information and belief, we have narrowed this down to a tall woman last name Brown. She’s from a family in show business and has altered her appearance with veneers, rhinoplasties, implants and weaves, but little in the way of conditioner or changing her behavior or affect through acting or accent work. She’s made a series of controversial and exploitative comments over nearly 20 years. That’ll be $400 million, give or take.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively Claims “Tailored” Win In Justin Baldoni Telecom Subpoenas Skirmish; Hires Crisis PR Vet Nick Shapiro

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-legal-win-crisis-pr-hire-1236305306/

Blake is delusional. She did not get what she want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

Thanks for the answer! I asked because I've seen other celebs get communications with their PR teams but I see now that's different from Blake asking for every message in case there's a connection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

Not quite. The argument you are referencing would go to damages, but doesn't really impact her ability to make her underlying case. Her argument is that she was sexually harassed, complained about it, and that Wayfarer retaliated against her for complaining via a PR campaign. None of that is predicated on her being popular or "moving product." That's just a standard harassment/retaliation claim under employment law. And if she can prove it to a fact-finder (jury or judge) then she will win regardless of what her popularity level was prior to the whole thing. She could be widely loathed and still win if she can prove they retaliated against her for her SH claims.

Now, in awarding damages, they'd have to determine what financial losses she incurred as a result of the retaliation. And that's where what you are talking about would come in. If Wayfarer could prove she was widely disliked even before the smear campaign and that their actions did little or nothing to damage her already tarnished reputation, they could greatly reduce the potential damages in the event of a loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

Not quite. The argument you are referencing would go to damages, but doesn't really impact her ability to make her underlying case. Her argument is that she was sexually harassed, complained about it, and that Wayfarer retaliated against her for complaining via a PR campaign. None of that is predicated on her being popular or "moving product." That's just a standard harassment/retaliation claim under employment law. And if she can prove it to a fact-finder (jury or judge) then she will win regardless of what her popularity level was prior to the whole thing. She could be widely loathed and still win if she can prove they retaliated against her for her SH claims.

Now, in awarding damages, they'd have to determine what financial losses she incurred as a result of the retaliation. And that's where what you are talking about would come in. If Wayfarer could prove she was widely disliked even before the smear campaign and that their actions did little or nothing to damage her already tarnished reputation, they could greatly reduce the potential damages in the event of a loss.

It’s interesting. From what I recall, everything went south with the “congrats on your little bump” video. I imagined Flaa posted that due to the stir the separate premier caused and the media buzz around that. But I’m not super dialed in. I wonder what every else’s perception is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is a fun little twist.

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/blake-lively-hires-cia-alum-crisis-pr-justin-baldoni-legal-battle-1236323621/

Blake has hired a crisis PR firm with CIA ties.

Anyone have any clue how much this is costing them?

I mean Melissa Nathan represented trump in crisis PR during his first impeachment hearing. A "CIA alum" does not sound problematic next to that. I've known people who worked at the CIA in various capacities and they are all normal people. Working for the CIA does not mean you interrogated people at black sites or took out hits on people. It's not like the movies.

I would assume Lively's PR and legal representation is costing about what Baldoni's is. They are all quite rich but the whole case will be a boon for the lawyers and publicists who will work with them through the mess. I have no idea why the cost of Lively's PR would be of more interest (or honestly of any interest) compared to Baldoni's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

I think anyone who is saying this must not know the legal industry. I do agree they are being outplayed on PR by Freedman (it's his speciality) but if you knew anything about these lawyers, I don't think you'd be so dismissive. Her lead trial lawyer is very well known as a tough litigator who excels in high profile, difficult cases. I would recommend checking out his resume: https://www.willkie.com/professionals/g/gottlieb-michael

He's not a lightweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

I think anyone who is saying this must not know the legal industry. I do agree they are being outplayed on PR by Freedman (it's his speciality) but if you knew anything about these lawyers, I don't think you'd be so dismissive. Her lead trial lawyer is very well known as a tough litigator who excels in high profile, difficult cases. I would recommend checking out his resume: https://www.willkie.com/professionals/g/gottlieb-michael

He's not a lightweight.

Yes, you’ve tried to hype him from the get go. I am a litigator and I typically work with lawyers who are far more talented. The quality of the work product put out by his firm in this litigation has been very mediocre. Which is why they lose each motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

I think anyone who is saying this must not know the legal industry. I do agree they are being outplayed on PR by Freedman (it's his speciality) but if you knew anything about these lawyers, I don't think you'd be so dismissive. Her lead trial lawyer is very well known as a tough litigator who excels in high profile, difficult cases. I would recommend checking out his resume: https://www.willkie.com/professionals/g/gottlieb-michael

He's not a lightweight.

Yes, you’ve tried to hype him from the get go. I am a litigator and I typically work with lawyers who are far more talented. The quality of the work product put out by his firm in this litigation has been very mediocre. Which is why they lose each motion.

Worth adding a true star litigator would not be working at Wilkie Farr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

Not quite. The argument you are referencing would go to damages, but doesn't really impact her ability to make her underlying case. Her argument is that she was sexually harassed, complained about it, and that Wayfarer retaliated against her for complaining via a PR campaign. None of that is predicated on her being popular or "moving product." That's just a standard harassment/retaliation claim under employment law. And if she can prove it to a fact-finder (jury or judge) then she will win regardless of what her popularity level was prior to the whole thing. She could be widely loathed and still win if she can prove they retaliated against her for her SH claims.

Now, in awarding damages, they'd have to determine what financial losses she incurred as a result of the retaliation. And that's where what you are talking about would come in. If Wayfarer could prove she was widely disliked even before the smear campaign and that their actions did little or nothing to damage her already tarnished reputation, they could greatly reduce the potential damages in the event of a loss.

It’s interesting. From what I recall, everything went south with the “congrats on your little bump” video. I imagined Flaa posted that due to the stir the separate premier caused and the media buzz around that. But I’m not super dialed in. I wonder what every else’s perception is.

I know she claims she was not involved in the smear campaign but once I heard she was connected to Depp/Heard I just can't imagine that wasn't coordinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Apparently they are using Wilkie because Ryan uses them for other, non litigation matters. That was a mistake.