Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a lawyer and the MTD is very strong and will be granted

I am a lawyer, and I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Candace is soooo good at breaking this down. And you know Ryan, Blake and Ari watch every minute of it sick to their stomachs. lol

Every time you cite Candace Owens as a reliable source on this, I become more convinced that Baldoni and Wayfarer are sketchy AF.

Why? Are you suggesting Owens is being bribed?

No I'm saying Owens is a Nazi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

You didn’t answer the question. The judge decides on whether there are issues of fact for a trial (jury or judge).

the jury plays no role until the trial stage. the judge decides pretrial motions like motions to dismiss and for summary judgement. The purpose of those motions is to determine whether the complaint alleged plausible legal claims (motion to dismiss) and whether there are disputed issues of fact (motion for summary judgment) sufficient to allow the case to get to the jury trial.

I guess my question is if Baldoni could lose (or Blake win) without it going the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

You didn’t answer the question. The judge decides on whether there are issues of fact for a trial (jury or judge).

the jury plays no role until the trial stage. the judge decides pretrial motions like motions to dismiss and for summary judgement. The purpose of those motions is to determine whether the complaint alleged plausible legal claims (motion to dismiss) and whether there are disputed issues of fact (motion for summary judgment) sufficient to allow the case to get to the jury trial.

I guess my question is if Baldoni could lose (or Blake win) without it going the jury.

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a lawyer and the MTD is very strong and will be granted

I am a lawyer, and I disagree.

yeah but you went to Tauro Law

DP

Actually I’m the one you claim is a Touro 1L lawyer and no, it won’t be granted in full.

complaint will be dismissed w/o prejudice

Why w/o prejudice?

Dp, but if he dismisses on the group pleading argument, would be customary to give them a chance to replead. It’s basically just a request for more clarity as to the allegations specific to each plaintiff..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

You didn’t answer the question. The judge decides on whether there are issues of fact for a trial (jury or judge).

the jury plays no role until the trial stage. the judge decides pretrial motions like motions to dismiss and for summary judgement. The purpose of those motions is to determine whether the complaint alleged plausible legal claims (motion to dismiss) and whether there are disputed issues of fact (motion for summary judgment) sufficient to allow the case to get to the jury trial.

I guess my question is if Baldoni could lose (or Blake win) without it going the jury.

So, in a case where they are the plaintiff, the plaintiff wants the case to proceed to a trial and the defendant wants it to be dismissed. The defendant makes legal arguments that amount to something like "as a matter of law, even if everything the plaintiff says is true, that doesn't meet the legal definition of [sexual harassment, defamation, extortion, etc]."

The jury is generally the "finder of fact" who decides whether those facts are true. You can also have a bench trial where the judge is the fact finder, but in this case, it's safe to assume if there is a trial it will be in front of a jury.

The defendant in a claim doesn't want it to get to the jury. They want the judge to say "yeah, plaintiff no case even if the facts alleged are true. There is no need to proceed to a trial to determine whether the facts are true or not true."

So, when it comes to Blake's cases for sexual harassment and retaliation, she wants to it to go the jury. That's the only way she can win. The Wayfarer parties want them dismissed by the judge.

And then as to Baldoni's cases for defamation and extortion, he wants those to proceed to the jury, while the Lively side wants them to be dismissed by the judge.

Keep in mind there's a ton of plaintiffs and defendants in each case. Wayfarer has mostly lumped them all together as the "Lively parties" which is where some defendants are arguing it is "impermissible group pleading," ie, you might have an arguable claim against Leslie Sloane/Vision PR or NYT for defamation, but not for extortion (Baldoni doesn't allege that those entities have threatened him to gain something, but rather, lumps them in with his claim against Lively).

Most recently, Leslie Sloane/Vision PR and the NYT have filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the particular claims against them should be dismissed, as a matter of law. They have a very strong argument as to the extortion, but they might have made one or two statements that could be considered defamation. So, the judge might dismiss extortion but let the defamation claims proceed for now to discovery, and there will still be further opportunity for plaintiffs to submit a motion for summary judgment to once again request the claims be dismissed prior to a trial because they do not meet the legal definition.

It's basically going to be lots of partial wins and losses for both sides. Some parts will be dismissed and some won't. Most of the motions won't be granted in full.

A defendant can "win" without a trial if all of the claims against them get dismissed prior to trial. A plaintiff can "win" if the case proceeds to trial and they win at trial.

[Anonymous]

“Guys I use ‘yummy’ all the time including in cloying tributes with a coworker who allegedly hated me!”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/blake-lively-shares-tribute-to-gossip-girl-costar-michelle-trachtenberg-may-her-work-and-her-huge-heart-be-remembered/ar-AA1zRYAl

BL needs that crisis PR firm; her own SEO cleanups are not, shall we say, convincing.

[Anonymous]

It's all so gross... either that Lively deliberately used the word yummy in an obituary to bolster her case, or that it's a coincidence and people are trawling through her obituary post to analyze her word choice to dump on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all so gross... either that Lively deliberately used the word yummy in an obituary to bolster her case, or that it's a coincidence and people are trawling through her obituary post to analyze her word choice to dump on her.

Trachtenburg did not follow Lively on SM but did for many others on Gossip Girl. The moment people digested Baldoni’s response including “yummy,” that specific usage was broadly discussed.

It’s not “gross” for anyone to clock her public communications. I’ll leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Guys I use ‘yummy’ all the time including in cloying tributes with a coworker who allegedly hated me!”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/blake-lively-shares-tribute-to-gossip-girl-costar-michelle-trachtenberg-may-her-work-and-her-huge-heart-be-remembered/ar-AA1zRYAl

BL needs that crisis PR firm; her own SEO cleanups are not, shall we say, convincing.

Good catch. That’s also why their bots are so active 24/7 on a random regional mommy forum. DCUM is abnormally outsized on Google search. Blake, Ryan and Ari just reek of desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all so gross... either that Lively deliberately used the word yummy in an obituary to bolster her case, or that it's a coincidence and people are trawling through her obituary post to analyze her word choice to dump on her.

It was clearly deliberate. Taylor Swift does stuff like this all the time to juke Google searches.

[Anonymous]

FWIW I fully believe Lively uses the word "yummy" all the time, and also that it's annoying AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all so gross... either that Lively deliberately used the word yummy in an obituary to bolster her case, or that it's a coincidence and people are trawling through her obituary post to analyze her word choice to dump on her.

It was clearly deliberate. Taylor Swift does stuff like this all the time to juke Google searches.

Np. I’m not following. What’s the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

You didn’t answer the question. The judge decides on whether there are issues of fact for a trial (jury or judge).

the jury plays no role until the trial stage. the judge decides pretrial motions like motions to dismiss and for summary judgement. The purpose of those motions is to determine whether the complaint alleged plausible legal claims (motion to dismiss) and whether there are disputed issues of fact (motion for summary judgment) sufficient to allow the case to get to the jury trial.

I guess my question is if Baldoni could lose (or Blake win) without it going the jury.

So, in a case where they are the plaintiff, the plaintiff wants the case to proceed to a trial and the defendant wants it to be dismissed. The defendant makes legal arguments that amount to something like "as a matter of law, even if everything the plaintiff says is true, that doesn't meet the legal definition of [sexual harassment, defamation, extortion, etc]."

The jury is generally the "finder of fact" who decides whether those facts are true. You can also have a bench trial where the judge is the fact finder, but in this case, it's safe to assume if there is a trial it will be in front of a jury.

The defendant in a claim doesn't want it to get to the jury. They want the judge to say "yeah, plaintiff no case even if the facts alleged are true. There is no need to proceed to a trial to determine whether the facts are true or not true."

So, when it comes to Blake's cases for sexual harassment and retaliation, she wants to it to go the jury. That's the only way she can win. The Wayfarer parties want them dismissed by the judge.

And then as to Baldoni's cases for defamation and extortion, he wants those to proceed to the jury, while the Lively side wants them to be dismissed by the judge.

Keep in mind there's a ton of plaintiffs and defendants in each case. Wayfarer has mostly lumped them all together as the "Lively parties" which is where some defendants are arguing it is "impermissible group pleading," ie, you might have an arguable claim against Leslie Sloane/Vision PR or NYT for defamation, but not for extortion (Baldoni doesn't allege that those entities have threatened him to gain something, but rather, lumps them in with his claim against Lively).

Most recently, Leslie Sloane/Vision PR and the NYT have filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the particular claims against them should be dismissed, as a matter of law. They have a very strong argument as to the extortion, but they might have made one or two statements that could be considered defamation. So, the judge might dismiss extortion but let the defamation claims proceed for now to discovery, and there will still be further opportunity for plaintiffs to submit a motion for summary judgment to once again request the claims be dismissed prior to a trial because they do not meet the legal definition.

It's basically going to be lots of partial wins and losses for both sides. Some parts will be dismissed and some won't. Most of the motions won't be granted in full.

A defendant can "win" without a trial if all of the claims against them get dismissed prior to trial. A plaintiff can "win" if the case proceeds to trial and they win at trial.

Dp. Good explanation. What do you think will happen?

[Anonymous]

I read the MTD and I have some thoughts/questions. It says the article was based on the Cal complaint, but I thought I remember the article or maybe twohey saying later that they reviewed thousands of docs/texts. Also, I recall that the article wasn’t just reporting on the complaint. For instance, I recall that it mentioned kjersti flaa and seemed to heavily imply she was somehow involved. The MTD also says that the only alleged defamatory statement was the “smear campaign” language, but didn’t wayfarer’s complaint characterize the whole article as defamatory? Also, calling the “smear campaign” phrase opinion just comes across as too cute to me.

This whole thing, the article and now the MTD, makes me feel really jaded about journalism and the NYT. It seems to me like they thought they had this great metoo story, and from the reader’s perspective, I feel like we were meant to assume it was fully vetted and fairly presented. And now the MTD is presenting it like they had no responsibility to do that vetting because they were just reporting on a filing. Maybe that’s right under the law, but I don’t feel like that’s how the NYT presented its story. In my opinion, it wasn’t an AP News style factual reporting on a legal filing, it was an expose style article with a lot more detail and editorializing than what was just in the filing.