Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't say why Ferrer used that word -- maybe she really did feel comfortable.

But also maybe Ferrer knew that the question of people being uncomfortable on the set was a whole issue, and thought she could reassure/ingratiate herself to Baldoni by making a point of saying "I was so comfortable! You made me really comfortable! Good job creating such a comfortable set!" This is kind of a classic form of kissing up, but it's like maybe you fixate on that specifically because it's a big issue.

People should stop infantalizing IF. Her words were her words. Making assumptions that she couldn’t have meant them because she’s a young actress sucking up to the director makes no sense once you learn she’s a freaking Clooney. People just stop. Neither BL nor IF were powerless on that set. IF isn’t speaking up because she wasn’t harassed.

It's not infantilizing to note that Ferrer is 23, and this was her first film. She's barely worked in Hollywood and had very recently graduated from college. She didn't grow up on film sets, wasn't a child actor. She was a novice and it is highly unlikely that she would provide a director with any honest negative feedback in that situation. Being related to George Clooney doesn't change that (and they are somewhat distantly related -- I think her dad is Clooney's cousin? It's not a tight connection).

She wasn’t required to provide him any feedback at all. She took the initiative to send him a positive text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't say why Ferrer used that word -- maybe she really did feel comfortable.

But also maybe Ferrer knew that the question of people being uncomfortable on the set was a whole issue, and thought she could reassure/ingratiate herself to Baldoni by making a point of saying "I was so comfortable! You made me really comfortable! Good job creating such a comfortable set!" This is kind of a classic form of kissing up, but it's like maybe you fixate on that specifically because it's a big issue.

People should stop infantalizing IF. Her words were her words. Making assumptions that she couldn’t have meant them because she’s a young actress sucking up to the director makes no sense once you learn she’s a freaking Clooney. People just stop. Neither BL nor IF were powerless on that set. IF isn’t speaking up because she wasn’t harassed.

It's not infantilizing to note that Ferrer is 23, and this was her first film. She's barely worked in Hollywood and had very recently graduated from college. She didn't grow up on film sets, wasn't a child actor. She was a novice and it is highly unlikely that she would provide a director with any honest negative feedback in that situation. Being related to George Clooney doesn't change that (and they are somewhat distantly related -- I think her dad is Clooney's cousin? It's not a tight connection).

She wasn’t required to provide him any feedback at all. She took the initiative to send him a positive text.

Maybe. Or maybe her agent told her to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

That PP clearly is not a lawyer and was just asking the thread lawyers for info as she often does before forming an opinion, but okay Karen just stomp all over her.

Also find it funny that the Baldoni supporters who have been like “Freedman is WINNING and never does anything wrong and this Motion to Dismiss is BS” are completely glossing over Freedman’s group pleading admission here. Seems like Freedman openly admits the MTD was not in fact BS so maybe you should have recognized that vulnerability instead of towing your party line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

That PP clearly is not a lawyer and was just asking the thread lawyers for info as she often does before forming an opinion, but okay Karen just stomp all over her.

Also find it funny that the Baldoni supporters who have been like “Freedman is WINNING and never does anything wrong and this Motion to Dismiss is BS” are completely glossing over Freedman’s group pleading admission here. Seems like Freedman openly admits the MTD was not in fact BS so maybe you should have recognized that vulnerability instead of towing your party line.

Recognizing a mistake instead of doubling down is good strategy. It’s what Blake’s lawyers should have done with the subpoenas.

[Anonymous]

The group pleading issue has nothing to do with the strength of the allegations, it’s just a specificity issue because there are multiple plaintiffs. Basically, Freedman will replead showing which allegations go with which plaintiffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

Why didn't they address this issue with the first amended complaint though? That's the part I don't understand. Seems like everyone agrees it's a problem.

Anyway, my question was whether the judge will be irritated. If it's just a technical issue and it's standard to let them fix it, ok, but since this will now push back the MTD and the judge has previously been annoyed with parties for trying to extend deadlines, I'm wondering if the judge will be annoyed by this.

Also wondering if this will affect discovery in the NYT case -- NYT wants to delay that until after the MTD, right? But Wayfarer is objecting? But now Wayfarer is going to amend their complaint again... seems like the judge might be irritated by this, but I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

Nope because a settlement takes it out if the hands of the court and indicates the Times did something they should be punished for. The best protection for Sullivan is to have the court apply Sullivan and say "yep, not defamation." Because it's not.

Seriously, Baldoni's beef is with Lively. The NYT just reported on it. You can argue their reporting was biased -- fine, is was a bit biased. But it wasn't defamatory. I'm sick of arguing about it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court is frothing at the mouth to overturn Sullivan. And any protracted litigation that winds up there is the biggest threat to Sullivan, not settled cases that don’t make it out of federal court.

Couldn’t disagree more about your second paragraph. Both Twomey and the Times were lazy and nearly ruined a man’s life as a result.

DP. I just see this case as so clean cut. Truth is a defense to defamation. The vast majority of the statements in the article are... true. Lively alleged blah blah blah in her complaint. Nathan and Abel stated XYZ in a text. Lively's forensic reported said something. Plus they are reporting on a legal proceeding. There are some vague statements ("smear campaign") that can reasonably called opinion or a brief summary of the allegations in the complaint. I actually think it fails without even needing to go to public figure actual malice, because they arguably didn't even write anything that was either not true or not opinion.

The article was dishonest because it was drafted in a way that gets the reader to draw certain inferences. The mentions of Flaa are a really clear cut case of that, IMO. In general, the article is very one-sided and would make most people believe Baldoni did in fact harass Lively and executed a PR campaign in retaliation for her complaining about it, causing damages to her, and that she therefore should win her suit. It is unfair and I totally understand why he is upset.

However, for Baldoni to win and Sullivan to be overturned on this case, the Court would essentially be saying: you cannot post true statements of fact in a way that makes someone look bad, you cannot publish an article without giving full and equal time to both sides and teasing out every bit of context up to and including interpretation of emojis, and you cannot report on an administrative complaint without fully litigating all the issues raised in the complaint prior to publication. There's just no way.

There are much more marginal things the Court could do with Sullivan, like dropping or refining the actual malice standard.

Manipulating texts to change their meaning is problematic and can be defamatory. Sorry you can’t see that.

You can edit documents for things like length, readability, and grammar. AFAIK Baldoni only claims they manipulated texts by stripping them of context, which I addressed. It would be a tall order for courts to say publishers must provide all possible context when publishing a statement.

If they had actually manipulated texts by changing the words to make the meaning different, sure, that could be defamatory but I don't think that's what's being claimed.

Totally agree with this and your prior post. Spot on.

There are important press protections at play here that are so much more important than this specific article.

We are above reproach. Our rag and the unethical fame whoring nitwits who work here can do whatever they want, from help start wars off disinformation to ruin people’s lives with bogus snipes fed to us by money-hungry Hollywood degenerates, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

It’s no wonder nobody trusts legacy media outlets anymore. Zero ethics.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/15/media-trust-gallup-survey

[Anonymous]

I would like to know more about why just mentioning Bryan Freedman or Jed Wallace o. Reddit gets a post/comment immediately downvoted into oblivion, and what is up with that.

I have been trying to find out more info about these two and see that Freedman and 2 or 3 od his frat brothers were accused in college of sexual assault against another female student and it was settled out of court.

Freedman appears to have ties with Wallace that go way back and I wonder if Freedman is not representing Wallace directly (so far - though I don’t think we know yet who Wallace is being represented by here as the amended complaint still has not been served as far as the docket reflects I think) because it could be an unethical conflict of interest. Was Freedman representing Wallace in the Texas case he filed? Freedman did purport to speak for Wallace in the email response to the NYT.

It seems like Wallace has done PR crisis work for Freedman before, separate from this case, so may personally know facts re Wallace which could make representation dicey.

[Anonymous]

I’m fairly convinced the Blake spammer might be Blake’s mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

Why didn't they address this issue with the first amended complaint though? That's the part I don't understand. Seems like everyone agrees it's a problem.

Anyway, my question was whether the judge will be irritated. If it's just a technical issue and it's standard to let them fix it, ok, but since this will now push back the MTD and the judge has previously been annoyed with parties for trying to extend deadlines, I'm wondering if the judge will be annoyed by this.

Also wondering if this will affect discovery in the NYT case -- NYT wants to delay that until after the MTD, right? But Wayfarer is objecting? But now Wayfarer is going to amend their complaint again... seems like the judge might be irritated by this, but I have no idea.

Well, it’s just a request for more specific pleading so it shouldn’t take long. Freedman has two options at this point, not admit his mistake, and go through the briefing cycle, and then replead after the judge told him to. Or say, that’s a fair point, and replead now. Which do you think a judge would prefer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

Why didn't they address this issue with the first amended complaint though? That's the part I don't understand. Seems like everyone agrees it's a problem.

Anyway, my question was whether the judge will be irritated. If it's just a technical issue and it's standard to let them fix it, ok, but since this will now push back the MTD and the judge has previously been annoyed with parties for trying to extend deadlines, I'm wondering if the judge will be annoyed by this.

Also wondering if this will affect discovery in the NYT case -- NYT wants to delay that until after the MTD, right? But Wayfarer is objecting? But now Wayfarer is going to amend their complaint again... seems like the judge might be irritated by this, but I have no idea.

Wayfarer said they are going to seek discovery from The NY Times even if The NY Times is not a party (and that makes sense), so my guess is the Court will it stay discovery anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

You fail to grasp that the remedy for group pleading is the oppprtinity to replead. It isn’t a big deal.

Why didn't they address this issue with the first amended complaint though? That's the part I don't understand. Seems like everyone agrees it's a problem.

Anyway, my question was whether the judge will be irritated. If it's just a technical issue and it's standard to let them fix it, ok, but since this will now push back the MTD and the judge has previously been annoyed with parties for trying to extend deadlines, I'm wondering if the judge will be annoyed by this.

Also wondering if this will affect discovery in the NYT case -- NYT wants to delay that until after the MTD, right? But Wayfarer is objecting? But now Wayfarer is going to amend their complaint again... seems like the judge might be irritated by this, but I have no idea.

Wayfarer said they are going to seek discovery from The NY Times even if The NY Times is not a party (and that makes sense), so my guess is the Court will it stay discovery anyway.

Will not stay discovery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol no. You don’t build credibility by filing a crap complaint then amending it.

The judge would have allowed them to replead anyway. This just moves up the timeline and saves the judge time. Now he just has to consider the actual dispositive arguments made by The NY Times.

probably but my point was it’s not “building credibility” to file a crap complaint then amend it when you see the MTD and you realize you are out of your depth legally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m fairly convinced the Blake spammer might be Blake’s mother.

I am fairly convinced that anyone believing this must be deranged.