Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I think it will be totally fine. But I understand why the Blake supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I think it will be totally fine. But I understand why the Blake supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I’m just so confused though. Were you wrong then when you all said 30 pages ago that the NYT’s Motion to Dismiss was bananas and clearly would not be granted because nothing in it (including the group pleading allegations) had legs? Or is your boy Freedman wrong and overreacting by acknowledging the truth of the group pleading allegations and saying he will file yet another amended complaint to correct them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I think it will be totally fine. But I understand why the Blake supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I’m just so confused though. Were you wrong then when you all said 30 pages ago that the NYT’s Motion to Dismiss was bananas and clearly would not be granted because nothing in it (including the group pleading allegations) had legs? Or is your boy Freedman wrong and overreacting by acknowledging the truth of the group pleading allegations and saying he will file yet another amended complaint to correct them?

Go back and read. I said that the group pleading argument didn’t really matter because he would just be given the opportunity to replead. Which is what is going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That ‘s because you fail to realize that the group pleading argument doesn’t really have anything to do with substance of the claims. Clearly that’s a disappointment for you.

No one thinks it has anything to do with substance. Everyone understands it's a technical, procedural problem. But in motions practice, technical and procedural errors that pile up can bury you.

no, it has a lot to do with substance. Each claim against each party has to be pled correctly or there is no claim.

[Anonymous]

Again I'll say it's just so silly that people would reduce legal analysis to who is a Blake supporter vs a Baldoni supporter. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks the Lively subpoenas were outrageously overbroad but also that Baldoni's complaint is a histrionic mess. I would find it really bizarre for anyone to agree with either party on literally every single point, considering all of the nuances here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I feel like the issue here is that they didn't plead it that way for substantive reasons. The Wayfarer parties' narrative here is that altogether, the Lively parties cooked up a phony story of sexual harassment and retaliation via outright lies or out-of-context and exaggerated material, using the threat of exposing this story to extort him into giving way to Lively's claims on his movie. However, they don't necessarily plead sufficiently that each defendant, standing alone, met the elements of each claim. Sloane/Vision PR's argument is they have not pled any facts for extortion other than restating the elements for the cause of action. NYT's claims that they merely reported on an existing complaint, and if anyone created a story that defamed him, that was Lively and they're not liable for that. One would assume if Freedman had those factual allegations as to each defendant, he would have included them in the first place.

Agreed, which is why I said upthread that I don't think it will be a simple matter to address the group pleading issue. Most complaints are way, way shorter than this and allege way fewer facts. But this is a super long complaint alleging the vast, interconnected conspiracy of events over the course of like 18 months. I think the group pleading issue may actually dismantle this complaint entirely. That doesn't mean they might not be able to plead something valid, correctly, but I don't think it's a question of just editing the complaint or adding a separate section for the claims against the NYT. I think they are going to have to start over from scratch.

Which maybe they are fine with. Who knows, maybe they've already drafted a proper complaint and this was all a ploy to just get a bunch of arguments out into the media and now they'll file a normal complaint and play it straight. If so, hats off on the PR approach because holy cow that worked. But also I do wonder at what point Liman is going to call Freedman out on this stuff because there is a line between taking advantage of valid legal maneuvering to benefit your client in the media, and abusing the court system, and at some point these shenanigans are going to cross it (maybe they already have, I don't know, I've never seen someone litigate quite like this but I don't work in Hollywood).

+1. Also the reason that I bet discovery will be stayed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I feel like the issue here is that they didn't plead it that way for substantive reasons. The Wayfarer parties' narrative here is that altogether, the Lively parties cooked up a phony story of sexual harassment and retaliation via outright lies or out-of-context and exaggerated material, using the threat of exposing this story to extort him into giving way to Lively's claims on his movie. However, they don't necessarily plead sufficiently that each defendant, standing alone, met the elements of each claim. Sloane/Vision PR's argument is they have not pled any facts for extortion other than restating the elements for the cause of action. NYT's claims that they merely reported on an existing complaint, and if anyone created a story that defamed him, that was Lively and they're not liable for that. One would assume if Freedman had those factual allegations as to each defendant, he would have included them in the first place.

Agreed, which is why I said upthread that I don't think it will be a simple matter to address the group pleading issue. Most complaints are way, way shorter than this and allege way fewer facts. But this is a super long complaint alleging the vast, interconnected conspiracy of events over the course of like 18 months. I think the group pleading issue may actually dismantle this complaint entirely. That doesn't mean they might not be able to plead something valid, correctly, but I don't think it's a question of just editing the complaint or adding a separate section for the claims against the NYT. I think they are going to have to start over from scratch.

Which maybe they are fine with. Who knows, maybe they've already drafted a proper complaint and this was all a ploy to just get a bunch of arguments out into the media and now they'll file a normal complaint and play it straight. If so, hats off on the PR approach because holy cow that worked. But also I do wonder at what point Liman is going to call Freedman out on this stuff because there is a line between taking advantage of valid legal maneuvering to benefit your client in the media, and abusing the court system, and at some point these shenanigans are going to cross it (maybe they already have, I don't know, I've never seen someone litigate quite like this but I don't work in Hollywood).

+1. Also the reason that I bet discovery will be stayed.

Nope, not with the representation that he will seek discovery from NYTimes even if they aren’t a party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I feel like the issue here is that they didn't plead it that way for substantive reasons. The Wayfarer parties' narrative here is that altogether, the Lively parties cooked up a phony story of sexual harassment and retaliation via outright lies or out-of-context and exaggerated material, using the threat of exposing this story to extort him into giving way to Lively's claims on his movie. However, they don't necessarily plead sufficiently that each defendant, standing alone, met the elements of each claim. Sloane/Vision PR's argument is they have not pled any facts for extortion other than restating the elements for the cause of action. NYT's claims that they merely reported on an existing complaint, and if anyone created a story that defamed him, that was Lively and they're not liable for that. One would assume if Freedman had those factual allegations as to each defendant, he would have included them in the first place.

Agreed, which is why I said upthread that I don't think it will be a simple matter to address the group pleading issue. Most complaints are way, way shorter than this and allege way fewer facts. But this is a super long complaint alleging the vast, interconnected conspiracy of events over the course of like 18 months. I think the group pleading issue may actually dismantle this complaint entirely. That doesn't mean they might not be able to plead something valid, correctly, but I don't think it's a question of just editing the complaint or adding a separate section for the claims against the NYT. I think they are going to have to start over from scratch.

Which maybe they are fine with. Who knows, maybe they've already drafted a proper complaint and this was all a ploy to just get a bunch of arguments out into the media and now they'll file a normal complaint and play it straight. If so, hats off on the PR approach because holy cow that worked. But also I do wonder at what point Liman is going to call Freedman out on this stuff because there is a line between taking advantage of valid legal maneuvering to benefit your client in the media, and abusing the court system, and at some point these shenanigans are going to cross it (maybe they already have, I don't know, I've never seen someone litigate quite like this but I don't work in Hollywood).

+1. Also the reason that I bet discovery will be stayed.

Nope, not with the representation that he will seek discovery from NYTimes even if they aren’t a party.

That argument doesn't make sense to me because participating in discovery as a third party is quite different than if you are a party. As a third party, NYT would not be obligated to participate in discovery conferences and meet with the magistrate to agree to a discovery plan. Staying discovery until the MTD has been ruled on delays that kind of participation until it's clear if it's needed.

If Wayfarer plans to ask NYT for documents as a third party in the case against Lively, they can do that whether or not discovery in the NYT case is stayed. But participating in discovery is more than just being served with interrogatories or requests for documents -- you can do that with any non-party that you think will have evidence dispositive to your case.

Not saying that means Liman will stay discovery, my understanding is that is rare in federal court. But Freedman's argument doesn't make sense because the request to stay isn't just about document production, it's about participating fully in discovery proceedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I feel like the issue here is that they didn't plead it that way for substantive reasons. The Wayfarer parties' narrative here is that altogether, the Lively parties cooked up a phony story of sexual harassment and retaliation via outright lies or out-of-context and exaggerated material, using the threat of exposing this story to extort him into giving way to Lively's claims on his movie. However, they don't necessarily plead sufficiently that each defendant, standing alone, met the elements of each claim. Sloane/Vision PR's argument is they have not pled any facts for extortion other than restating the elements for the cause of action. NYT's claims that they merely reported on an existing complaint, and if anyone created a story that defamed him, that was Lively and they're not liable for that. One would assume if Freedman had those factual allegations as to each defendant, he would have included them in the first place.

Agreed, which is why I said upthread that I don't think it will be a simple matter to address the group pleading issue. Most complaints are way, way shorter than this and allege way fewer facts. But this is a super long complaint alleging the vast, interconnected conspiracy of events over the course of like 18 months. I think the group pleading issue may actually dismantle this complaint entirely. That doesn't mean they might not be able to plead something valid, correctly, but I don't think it's a question of just editing the complaint or adding a separate section for the claims against the NYT. I think they are going to have to start over from scratch.

Which maybe they are fine with. Who knows, maybe they've already drafted a proper complaint and this was all a ploy to just get a bunch of arguments out into the media and now they'll file a normal complaint and play it straight. If so, hats off on the PR approach because holy cow that worked. But also I do wonder at what point Liman is going to call Freedman out on this stuff because there is a line between taking advantage of valid legal maneuvering to benefit your client in the media, and abusing the court system, and at some point these shenanigans are going to cross it (maybe they already have, I don't know, I've never seen someone litigate quite like this but I don't work in Hollywood).

+1. Also the reason that I bet discovery will be stayed.

Nope, not with the representation that he will seek discovery from NYTimes even if they aren’t a party.

That argument doesn't make sense to me because participating in discovery as a third party is quite different than if you are a party. As a third party, NYT would not be obligated to participate in discovery conferences and meet with the magistrate to agree to a discovery plan. Staying discovery until the MTD has been ruled on delays that kind of participation until it's clear if it's needed.

If Wayfarer plans to ask NYT for documents as a third party in the case against Lively, they can do that whether or not discovery in the NYT case is stayed. But participating in discovery is more than just being served with interrogatories or requests for documents -- you can do that with any non-party that you think will have evidence dispositive to your case.

Not saying that means Liman will stay discovery, my understanding is that is rare in federal court. But Freedman's argument doesn't make sense because the request to stay isn't just about document production, it's about participating fully in discovery proceedings.

It’s not a burden to attend a discovery conference, the burden is actually producing discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again I'll say it's just so silly that people would reduce legal analysis to who is a Blake supporter vs a Baldoni supporter. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks the Lively subpoenas were outrageously overbroad but also that Baldoni's complaint is a histrionic mess. I would find it really bizarre for anyone to agree with either party on literally every single point, considering all of the nuances here.

Agree with this. I find it so bizarre when I comment on this thread and then randomly get accused of being Blake Lively's mother because I didn't say "omg Baldoni's lawyers are geniuses, I bow down to them."

Right now the focus is on Baldoni's claims because there are multiple MTDs pending against it and likely to be at least one more (Lively's lawyer has already said they plan to file one). So right now, the focus is on the viability of Baldoni's claims and the likelihood of them being dismissed or limited. Freedman has already said they don't intend to file an MTD against Lively, so it's going to be a while before we have anything to discuss regarding Lively's complaint. I personally think there's major flaws in both parties' pleadings so I am happy to discuss those as they arise, there's just not much to discuss on Lively's side at the moment. I also thought both Sloane and the NYT submitted really solid MTDs, probably why they were first out of the gate -- they have some of the strongest, clearest arguments for dismissal.

[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).

It is infantilizing her though. First, she’s not 23, she’s 25. She was 23 when doing this movie.

But second, it’s not just the text. She did a press interview before the promotional tour and absolutely gushed about Justin and the entire experience, but particularly singling him out. Interestingly, I can no longer find the video, but I remember watching the panel. Luckily Perez Hilton captured the quotes and posted them in this article.
https://perezhilton.com/it-ends-with-us-star-isabela-ferrer-spoke-highly-justin-baldoni-creating-safe-set/amp/

This is not just one text, this is her going on and on about her experience with this director on a video. Interestingly, before the big promotional push happened when Blake might’ve had the opportunity to influence the cast. We don’t know.

It is quite possible that she had an uncomfortable experience with him, but we simply do not know. And we have to let her tell her story. That goes for Justin supporters too saying that there’s no way she could’ve had a problem with him. I disagree with that and acknowledge she may have been uncomfortable. But unlike Jenny Slate, who did act weird during the promotional tour and deliberately avoided a question about Justin, and there is some evidence that she either was going to file a complaint with HR or did actually file a complaint with HR, we have not heard anything specifically about Isabella. But we do have this text, and this interview where she went on extensively about Justin and her positive experience.

Unlike Jenny, who also posted something positive about Blake after the New York Times article hit, Isabella has been silent and has not said anything one way or the other. We really need to let her speak. Maybe she will be subpoenaed and and hear from her, but at this point, it’s really obnoxious to go against everything that she said and assume for her because she’s young, and she was kissing up for the director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I feel like the issue here is that they didn't plead it that way for substantive reasons. The Wayfarer parties' narrative here is that altogether, the Lively parties cooked up a phony story of sexual harassment and retaliation via outright lies or out-of-context and exaggerated material, using the threat of exposing this story to extort him into giving way to Lively's claims on his movie. However, they don't necessarily plead sufficiently that each defendant, standing alone, met the elements of each claim. Sloane/Vision PR's argument is they have not pled any facts for extortion other than restating the elements for the cause of action. NYT's claims that they merely reported on an existing complaint, and if anyone created a story that defamed him, that was Lively and they're not liable for that. One would assume if Freedman had those factual allegations as to each defendant, he would have included them in the first place.

Agreed, which is why I said upthread that I don't think it will be a simple matter to address the group pleading issue. Most complaints are way, way shorter than this and allege way fewer facts. But this is a super long complaint alleging the vast, interconnected conspiracy of events over the course of like 18 months. I think the group pleading issue may actually dismantle this complaint entirely. That doesn't mean they might not be able to plead something valid, correctly, but I don't think it's a question of just editing the complaint or adding a separate section for the claims against the NYT. I think they are going to have to start over from scratch.

Which maybe they are fine with. Who knows, maybe they've already drafted a proper complaint and this was all a ploy to just get a bunch of arguments out into the media and now they'll file a normal complaint and play it straight. If so, hats off on the PR approach because holy cow that worked. But also I do wonder at what point Liman is going to call Freedman out on this stuff because there is a line between taking advantage of valid legal maneuvering to benefit your client in the media, and abusing the court system, and at some point these shenanigans are going to cross it (maybe they already have, I don't know, I've never seen someone litigate quite like this but I don't work in Hollywood).

+1. Also the reason that I bet discovery will be stayed.

Nope, not with the representation that he will seek discovery from NYTimes even if they aren’t a party.

That argument doesn't make sense to me because participating in discovery as a third party is quite different than if you are a party. As a third party, NYT would not be obligated to participate in discovery conferences and meet with the magistrate to agree to a discovery plan. Staying discovery until the MTD has been ruled on delays that kind of participation until it's clear if it's needed.

If Wayfarer plans to ask NYT for documents as a third party in the case against Lively, they can do that whether or not discovery in the NYT case is stayed. But participating in discovery is more than just being served with interrogatories or requests for documents -- you can do that with any non-party that you think will have evidence dispositive to your case.

Not saying that means Liman will stay discovery, my understanding is that is rare in federal court. But Freedman's argument doesn't make sense because the request to stay isn't just about document production, it's about participating fully in discovery proceedings.

It’s not a burden to attend a discovery conference, the burden is actually producing discovery.

It is absolutely a burden to participate in formulating a plan for discovery in a case that has a decent chance of being dismissed or significantly reduced in scope within the next few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I feel like the issue here is that they didn't plead it that way for substantive reasons. The Wayfarer parties' narrative here is that altogether, the Lively parties cooked up a phony story of sexual harassment and retaliation via outright lies or out-of-context and exaggerated material, using the threat of exposing this story to extort him into giving way to Lively's claims on his movie. However, they don't necessarily plead sufficiently that each defendant, standing alone, met the elements of each claim. Sloane/Vision PR's argument is they have not pled any facts for extortion other than restating the elements for the cause of action. NYT's claims that they merely reported on an existing complaint, and if anyone created a story that defamed him, that was Lively and they're not liable for that. One would assume if Freedman had those factual allegations as to each defendant, he would have included them in the first place.

Agreed, which is why I said upthread that I don't think it will be a simple matter to address the group pleading issue. Most complaints are way, way shorter than this and allege way fewer facts. But this is a super long complaint alleging the vast, interconnected conspiracy of events over the course of like 18 months. I think the group pleading issue may actually dismantle this complaint entirely. That doesn't mean they might not be able to plead something valid, correctly, but I don't think it's a question of just editing the complaint or adding a separate section for the claims against the NYT. I think they are going to have to start over from scratch.

Which maybe they are fine with. Who knows, maybe they've already drafted a proper complaint and this was all a ploy to just get a bunch of arguments out into the media and now they'll file a normal complaint and play it straight. If so, hats off on the PR approach because holy cow that worked. But also I do wonder at what point Liman is going to call Freedman out on this stuff because there is a line between taking advantage of valid legal maneuvering to benefit your client in the media, and abusing the court system, and at some point these shenanigans are going to cross it (maybe they already have, I don't know, I've never seen someone litigate quite like this but I don't work in Hollywood).

+1. Also the reason that I bet discovery will be stayed.

Nope, not with the representation that he will seek discovery from NYTimes even if they aren’t a party.

You’re missing the point. The judge may want to stay discovery pending Baldoni showing he can plead something correctly. And the scope of discovery is different if the Times is a non-party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just responding to my own post and answering my own question that, as far as I can tell, Freedman was not himself representing Jed Wallace on the original complaint Wallace filed against Lively on February 4 in Texas. Multiple lawyers from the Jackson Walker firm entered an appearance for Wallace and Street Relations in that case (specifically, Chip Babcock, Matt Dow, Charles Glover, Katharine Carmona, and Cody Lee Vaughn), but Freedman did not enter an appearance despite what I understand to be a longstanding relationship. I do wonder whether an actual conflict of interest might prohibit Freedman’s representation of Wallace here.

I believe Wallace and Dickhouse productions were previously sued by Bam Margera when Margera got kicked off of Jackass. Wallace was apparently put in charge of Margera’s rehab program which Margera found inhumane. Freedman has represented Dickhouse (not sure if he did so on this suit) and has cc’d Jed Wallace on emails from The Hollywood Reporter where THR was threatening to publish an article on Freedman that Freedman didn’t like and wanted to stop. This suggests Wallace might himself at times perform crisis PR for Freedman, which might make Freedman’s representation of Wallace here a problem.

[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).

It is infantilizing her though. First, she’s not 23, she’s 25. She was 23 when doing this movie.

But second, it’s not just the text. She did a press interview before the promotional tour and absolutely gushed about Justin and the entire experience, but particularly singling him out. Interestingly, I can no longer find the video, but I remember watching the panel. Luckily Perez Hilton captured the quotes and posted them in this article.
https://perezhilton.com/it-ends-with-us-star-isabela-ferrer-spoke-highly-justin-baldoni-creating-safe-set/amp/

This is not just one text, this is her going on and on about her experience with this director on a video. Interestingly, before the big promotional push happened when Blake might’ve had the opportunity to influence the cast. We don’t know.

It is quite possible that she had an uncomfortable experience with him, but we simply do not know. And we have to let her tell her story. That goes for Justin supporters too saying that there’s no way she could’ve had a problem with him. I disagree with that and acknowledge she may have been uncomfortable. But unlike Jenny Slate, who did act weird during the promotional tour and deliberately avoided a question about Justin, and there is some evidence that she either was going to file a complaint with HR or did actually file a complaint with HR, we have not heard anything specifically about Isabella. But we do have this text, and this interview where she went on extensively about Justin and her positive experience.

Unlike Jenny, who also posted something positive about Blake after the New York Times article hit, Isabella has been silent and has not said anything one way or the other. We really need to let her speak. Maybe she will be subpoenaed and and hear from her, but at this point, it’s really obnoxious to go against everything that she said and assume for her because she’s young, and she was kissing up for the director.

I just fundamentally disagree that it is "infantilizing" to point out that someone who is 23 and working on their first film is not necessarily going to feel empowered to complain or be honest about her experience in interacting with or even talking about the director. I would say the exact same thing about a male actor at that same age and experience level. Being very inexperienced and having little or no experience on sets, and no resume to speak of, puts you in a much more vulnerable position in any job. So it's not "infantilizing" to say this. It's just true.

Notice I would never make the same argument about Blake or Jenny Slate. Or Baldoni. These are all people who have been in the industry a long time, are much older and have a lot more experience in the business. They are all going to know their rights more, they have more leverage in any power struggle. Very different situation.

I feel like it's unfair to look at anything Ferrer might have said directly to Baldoni or publicly about him and say "gotcha!" I think about how I felt and behaved in my first ever job at her age and if you tried to hold me to things I said and argued "well that must be how you really felt at the time" I'd laugh at you now. There's just a huge difference between a 23 year old and a 40 year old, and almost no one speaks up on their first ever job and is like "actually I had a problem with this and this and this" unless they have no interest in working again.