Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

I can't tell if you are simply lying on purpose or just repeating lies other people have told you.

Baldoni attended the premiere. Here he is on the red carpet, posing for photos and giving interviews (he also watched the film in a theater full of friends, family, and Wayfarer personnel):
Arriving at the premiere: https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7400456757102873898?lang=en
Walking the red carpet, posing for photos: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?events=776185420&family=editorial&phrase=Justin%20Baldoni%20it%20ends%20with%20us%20premiere&recommendconfig=recommendonly
One of several red carpet interviews: https://youtu.be/BDOLAlZ_1dc?si=-b0KbssCGfNQswVO

Baldoni is credited as the director of the movie. He received a "directed by" credit.

The "a film by" credit, also called a possessory credit, is pretty rare. It is *often* an extremely political decision, and many fights have been had over it. It is most common when the director is also the screenwriter, though not all directors who write their movies take it. The biggest criticism of the "a film by" credit is that it diminished the contributions of everyone else who worked on the movie, making it seem like the act of a single person when filmmaking is inherently collaborative. It is somewhat comical that Baldoni, a newbie director, would claim the credit on a movie he did not write, based on a novel he did not write, and where the distributing studio had decided to release someone else's edit. Of course he did not receive this credit! You can read more about the history, and politics, of the possessory credit here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by

And going to your claim that the sexual harassment was "just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior" and doesn't count -- what do you think sexual harassment is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Because they will lose. Lively's complaint is well constructed and based on sound legal reasoning, it will at a minimum make it to the summary judgment phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I doubt any of the main cast were unaware of the issues at that point. Even if, for instance, Brandon Sklenar had personally only had good interactions with Baldoni at that point, he was filming scenes with Lively that Baldoni directed. There is no way that pretty much everyone wasn't aware of the tension at that point. And we know Jenny Slate had made her own complaint about Heath already.

My impression is that this was an uncomfortable, unhappy set pretty much from the jump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Could be that they are arguing that their own claims involve issues for the trier of fact that can't be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, and arguing that other claims could be dismissed at this stage could get in the way of that. And also as PP says, the Lively complaint is strong enough to survive such a motion.

I also found it interesting that Freedman is basically immediately conceding the group pleading point and noting that they will amend their complaint immediately (basically ignoring/evading NYTs argument that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone). In other words, had Freedman not so amended, the complaint likely would have been dismissed on these grounds (likely without prejudice).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

Agree, it is not weird for her to thank him. What people have been paying attention to is her wording. She gushed about how comfortable he made everything - that seems kind of weird. There are plenty of ways to think someone and even blow smoke up their ass without using that word if in fact, you felt uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

I can't tell if you are simply lying on purpose or just repeating lies other people have told you.

Baldoni attended the premiere. Here he is on the red carpet, posing for photos and giving interviews (he also watched the film in a theater full of friends, family, and Wayfarer personnel):
Arriving at the premiere: https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7400456757102873898?lang=en
Walking the red carpet, posing for photos: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?events=776185420&family=editorial&phrase=Justin%20Baldoni%20it%20ends%20with%20us%20premiere&recommendconfig=recommendonly
One of several red carpet interviews: https://youtu.be/BDOLAlZ_1dc?si=-b0KbssCGfNQswVO

Baldoni is credited as the director of the movie. He received a "directed by" credit.

The "a film by" credit, also called a possessory credit, is pretty rare. It is *often* an extremely political decision, and many fights have been had over it. It is most common when the director is also the screenwriter, though not all directors who write their movies take it. The biggest criticism of the "a film by" credit is that it diminished the contributions of everyone else who worked on the movie, making it seem like the act of a single person when filmmaking is inherently collaborative. It is somewhat comical that Baldoni, a newbie director, would claim the credit on a movie he did not write, based on a novel he did not write, and where the distributing studio had decided to release someone else's edit. Of course he did not receive this credit! You can read more about the history, and politics, of the possessory credit here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by

And going to your claim that the sexual harassment was "just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior" and doesn't count -- what do you think sexual harassment is?

Thanks for the additional context.

[Anonymous]

Not so fast about Brandon. He was just at an award show last night and he wore the exact same floral broach that Justin wore to the premier of it ends with us. Not all that common for men to wear broaches and for them to have the exact same one? People are saying it’s loud and clear support for Justin. Especially after he has recently backed down on his support for Blake. he’s gone from neutral to supporting Justin.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

I can't tell if you are simply lying on purpose or just repeating lies other people have told you.

Baldoni attended the premiere. Here he is on the red carpet, posing for photos and giving interviews (he also watched the film in a theater full of friends, family, and Wayfarer personnel):
Arriving at the premiere: https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7400456757102873898?lang=en
Walking the red carpet, posing for photos: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?events=776185420&family=editorial&phrase=Justin%20Baldoni%20it%20ends%20with%20us%20premiere&recommendconfig=recommendonly
One of several red carpet interviews: https://youtu.be/BDOLAlZ_1dc?si=-b0KbssCGfNQswVO

Baldoni is credited as the director of the movie. He received a "directed by" credit.

The "a film by" credit, also called a possessory credit, is pretty rare. It is *often* an extremely political decision, and many fights have been had over it. It is most common when the director is also the screenwriter, though not all directors who write their movies take it. The biggest criticism of the "a film by" credit is that it diminished the contributions of everyone else who worked on the movie, making it seem like the act of a single person when filmmaking is inherently collaborative. It is somewhat comical that Baldoni, a newbie director, would claim the credit on a movie he did not write, based on a novel he did not write, and where the distributing studio had decided to release someone else's edit. Of course he did not receive this credit! You can read more about the history, and politics, of the possessory credit here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by

And going to your claim that the sexual harassment was "just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior" and doesn't count -- what do you think sexual harassment is?

It’s really not up to you to explain how Justin felt about a film by being stripped from his name. Maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal to you, it was a big deal to him and it would be for most filmmakers.

I know you keep saying, and saying again, that Blake experience sexual harassment, but we are what we are telling you is that many of us don’t believe she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m happy the Times has been exposed as corrupt. Media can be and is bought off to spread lies. We all know it, why pretend otherwise. They ain’t above reproach, reporters, editors and publishers can be evil, unethical, money and fame hungry.

I don't understand what financial or other personal benefit you think the Times or Twohey received for this article.

I tend to think Twohey simply believed Lively and thought the article was correct.

The article provided a free clickable PDF to the complaint. They did not have a paywall for the article or PDF. They knew it was going to get a ton, and I mean a ton of clicks. To say that they didn’t benefit financially from this is insane.

NP. You’ve clearly never worked in publishing. This article itself wouldn’t make a lot of money, that’s not how it works. A ‘ton of clicks’ means little without advertising revenue directly tied to it, and advertisers don’t like to post around content like this. The NYT wanted the prestige of breaking this metoo type story, but there weren’t direct financial incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

Agree, it is not weird for her to thank him. What people have been paying attention to is her wording. She gushed about how comfortable he made everything - that seems kind of weird. There are plenty of ways to think someone and even blow smoke up their ass without using that word if in fact, you felt uncomfortable.

DP. I'm cynical enough that I feel the opposite. I posted earlier a quote from the Anora actress saying how she was super comfortable with the director and his wife (!) showing her sex positions and didn't want an IC. I think it's BS and the actresses basically implicitly understand that the more uncomfortable they are, the more they need to emphasize how comfortable and safe they felt. And I'm bringing that example because it's just how I feel about Hollywood and not because I'm Blake's PR. Actually this makes Baldoni just talking about his wife and Heath showing the birth video seem not so bad!

I just think so many actresses go through hell and the IEWU set was probably not nearly as bad as others, precisely because Blake has some power over Baldoni to shut some stuff down, but yet some of the things he did were inappropriate. It's such a messy case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Could be that they are arguing that their own claims involve issues for the trier of fact that can't be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, and arguing that other claims could be dismissed at this stage could get in the way of that. And also as PP says, the Lively complaint is strong enough to survive such a motion.

I also found it interesting that Freedman is basically immediately conceding the group pleading point and noting that they will amend their complaint immediately (basically ignoring/evading NYTs argument that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone). In other words, had Freedman not so amended, the complaint likely would have been dismissed on these grounds (likely without prejudice).

This is how one builds credibility with the Court. Now the judge doesn’t have to waste time on that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.


Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical