Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

[Anonymous]

Lots of heart emojis in the back and forth texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of heart emojis in the back and forth texts.

Just BSing and ass kissing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

I think he’ll have to pay damages to her for retaliating, and I don’t think she’ll owe him damages. Fact is she said she was uncomfortable and he signed something saying he wouldn’t retaliate for that. I think it’s far more complicated, but I think that will be the outcome, because nobody’s going to want to say a woman can’t say she’s uncomfortable. I personally think she lied about being uncomfortable, to use it as a bargaining chip, but I don’t think that will really matter. Because they basically let her use it as a bargaining chip. They could have just said, no, we’re not signing that and let the chips fall. It would have made them look bad, and they would have lost money, but then they could have sued her for damages and used whatever PR people they wanted to do damage control.

I think she’ll lose in the court of public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the amended document (different from the link above): https://dam.tmz.com/document/22/o/2025/02/01/2239f45c1ecb4e1680f278ba9c5c6092.pdf

Justin addresses Blake's claim that he had sex without consent. "In her Complaint, she intentionally misrepresents the story to suggest that Baldoni had engaged in sexual conduct without consent. In fact, it was the other way around. Baldoni was referencing an intimate relationship in which he was the one who did not give consent, not the other way around."

Thank you for the doc!

Question for the litigators. I'm a lawyer but it's been a minute since I've been in law school or interned for a judge..

Is it common today to have all of these annotations, embedded images, and so on in these filings? Back in the day, this stuff might be described in the pleadings, but ultimately be produced in discovery and may need to be verified with an affidavit that it is a true and correct copy of a business record, etc. I don't doubt that any of these documents are real, but it just seems unusual to have all this stuff upfront without it actually being verified, and often including emphasis added (highlighting, red circles). Again, not casting doubt, just wondering how common this is. It feels more like this is targeted to making it easy for the press rather than the court, which is totally understandable.

I guess the technology isn't there yet to embed audio and video clips in the filings, otherwise Baldoni probably would have done that with the video of the dance scene. That seems like it's begging for the judge to make findings of fact rather than addressing the law. No matter how good the proof is that Baldoni attaches (and it is very compelling), the judge isn't really supposed to be looking at that but rather making a legal determination of whether Lively's claims, if true, survive a motion to dismiss.

I mean … given the heightened pleading requirements required by the Supreme Court, you can’t really fault a party for putting more facts in their complaint. And facts are never “proven” by some neutral authority in order to be entered into evidence or pleaded - that would turn the system on its head.

I'm not faulting him, just wondering if this is common or a strategy that he's using to get his side out, especially in light of a protective order being requested. If it's strategy I think it's a good one for PR reasons but am curious if it would annoy a judge, or are they used to seeing screenshots and markups in pleadings in 2025?

It’s both - arriving a motion to dismiss and playing to the press.

Judges usually like receiving material as long as it helps, is clear, well organized, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

I think he’ll have to pay damages to her for retaliating, and I don’t think she’ll owe him damages. Fact is she said she was uncomfortable and he signed something saying he wouldn’t retaliate for that. I think it’s far more complicated, but I think that will be the outcome, because nobody’s going to want to say a woman can’t say she’s uncomfortable. I personally think she lied about being uncomfortable, to use it as a bargaining chip, but I don’t think that will really matter. Because they basically let her use it as a bargaining chip. They could have just said, no, we’re not signing that and let the chips fall. It would have made them look bad, and they would have lost money, but then they could have sued her for damages and used whatever PR people they wanted to do damage control.

I think she’ll lose in the court of public opinion.

No, I think the jury is going to follow the evidence and see that there isn’t enough to prove her claims, even the retaliation one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

I think he’ll have to pay damages to her for retaliating, and I don’t think she’ll owe him damages. Fact is she said she was uncomfortable and he signed something saying he wouldn’t retaliate for that. I think it’s far more complicated, but I think that will be the outcome, because nobody’s going to want to say a woman can’t say she’s uncomfortable. I personally think she lied about being uncomfortable, to use it as a bargaining chip, but I don’t think that will really matter. Because they basically let her use it as a bargaining chip. They could have just said, no, we’re not signing that and let the chips fall. It would have made them look bad, and they would have lost money, but then they could have sued her for damages and used whatever PR people they wanted to do damage control.

I think she’ll lose in the court of public opinion.

No, I think the jury is going to follow the evidence and see that there isn’t enough to prove her claims, even the retaliation one.

I hope so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

I think he’ll have to pay damages to her for retaliating, and I don’t think she’ll owe him damages. Fact is she said she was uncomfortable and he signed something saying he wouldn’t retaliate for that. I think it’s far more complicated, but I think that will be the outcome, because nobody’s going to want to say a woman can’t say she’s uncomfortable. I personally think she lied about being uncomfortable, to use it as a bargaining chip, but I don’t think that will really matter. Because they basically let her use it as a bargaining chip. They could have just said, no, we’re not signing that and let the chips fall. It would have made them look bad, and they would have lost money, but then they could have sued her for damages and used whatever PR people they wanted to do damage control.

I think she’ll lose in the court of public opinion.

Largely agree except I think likely she did feel uncomfortable. I don't think everyone would have felt uncomfortable in that situation but I believe she did.

I also am not sure that in the end this will hurt her or Ryan Reynolds much. Maybe some, but I think ultimately her being kind of high maintenance and and him being sort of a superior aggressor is baked into their public personas and may even be part of the appeal for people. Not all celebs are Tom Hanks types where people think of them as friends -- some celebs are allowed/expected to kind of be PITAs and no one really cares. It's not like Lively previously had a rep for being super kind and easy to work with. This all sort of fits in with the existing narrative for her and I think especially if she wins the legal case, people will move on and not care that much.

[Anonymous]

This is destroying Lively online.
I actually think she’ll lose legally as well. He did not retaliate when she expressed concerns. He turned to PR assistance after a coordinated effort by the Lively camp to bring him down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the amended document (different from the link above): https://dam.tmz.com/document/22/o/2025/02/01/2239f45c1ecb4e1680f278ba9c5c6092.pdf

Justin addresses Blake's claim that he had sex without consent. "In her Complaint, she intentionally misrepresents the story to suggest that Baldoni had engaged in sexual conduct without consent. In fact, it was the other way around. Baldoni was referencing an intimate relationship in which he was the one who did not give consent, not the other way around."

Thanks for amended complaint link. Sure a bonus went to whoever at Baldoni law firm spotted the date stamps to create argument about when NYTimes started getting messages from Lively team.

[Anonymous]

1/4 way in to amended complaint talk about could cost millions to recast her when she first started being difficult. Believe if ever in situation again, they would say, worth it- recast!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the amended document (different from the link above): https://dam.tmz.com/document/22/o/2025/02/01/2239f45c1ecb4e1680f278ba9c5c6092.pdf

Justin addresses Blake's claim that he had sex without consent. "In her Complaint, she intentionally misrepresents the story to suggest that Baldoni had engaged in sexual conduct without consent. In fact, it was the other way around. Baldoni was referencing an intimate relationship in which he was the one who did not give consent, not the other way around."

Thanks for amended complaint link. Sure a bonus went to whoever at Baldoni law firm spotted the date stamps to create argument about when NYTimes started getting messages from Lively team.

They got it from YouTubers and social media people.

[Anonymous]

Lawyers who read the amended suit: Does this improve his case against the NYTimes? Or is it the same as it was? I'm not just talking about the metadata, but his credible rebuttals to claims of sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is destroying Lively online.
I actually think she’ll lose legally as well. He did not retaliate when she expressed concerns. He turned to PR assistance after a coordinated effort by the Lively camp to bring him down.

How would you describe the coordinated effort? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.