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:

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.

DP. I'm someone who has argued that she might have said she was comfortable when she actually wasn't because that's how Hollywood is, but these points are fair. What I disagree with is when people swoop in to say "well Ferrer sent that text so clearly Baldoni did nothing wrong." You make good points about the differences between Ferrer's behavior during promo and Slate's. And those points align with THR reporting that Slate made a complaint against Heath, while there is no evidence Ferrer did outside of some strange YouTube video, so as of right now, I do not believe Ferrer did so. And it's totally possible Ferrer had a different experience than Slate and Lively (or that Slate and Lively are lying, or that Lively influenced Slate, etc, etc, mentioning all possibilities because if my comment isn't sufficiently negative against Blake I'll be accused of being her PR).

Like you said, if any of the parties find Ferrer's testimony relevant, they can depose her and we'll see. I am open to either possibility and what I really hate is categorical statements either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Freedman-Wallace-Nathan nexus is an interesting one and I do think one we'll learn more about. In addition to Freedman having this history with Wallace that long predates any work he did for Wayfarer, there's this comment in the texts between Abel and Nathan in August where they are discussing Baldoni maybe getting lawyered up and reference connecting him to "BF." A lot of people have speculated, reasonably, that BF is Bryan Freedman and that Baldoni might have hired Freedman as early as August (which would also explain how they put these huge filings and timelines together "so fast" after Lively filed her lawsuit). If Nathan was the one to recommend Freedman, and Nathan also has the pre-existing relationship with Wallace which is how he got pulled into the Baldoni thing, there is an implication that Freedman could be implicated in the alleged smear campaign.

Lively chose not to add Freedman as a defendant when she amended her complaint, but a lot of people online speculate that they were at least thinking about it because of that "BF" reference in the texts. The whole things is dicey because attorney-client communications are privileged -- what if discussion of the campaign against Lively flowed through Freedman, who represents all parties? You can pierce AC privilege if the attorney is part of a conspiracy to illegal conduct. But the bar is high because that privilege is pretty sacrosanct.

I am fascinated by this aspect of this case and interested to see if it goes anywhere. The Freedman stuff is a real rabbit hole. I was really stunned when I read that old THR profile of Freedman and Jed Wallace's name popped up. Also finding out he repped not only Megyn Kelly but also Perez Hilton. It's all very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Freedman-Wallace-Nathan nexus is an interesting one and I do think one we'll learn more about. In addition to Freedman having this history with Wallace that long predates any work he did for Wayfarer, there's this comment in the texts between Abel and Nathan in August where they are discussing Baldoni maybe getting lawyered up and reference connecting him to "BF." A lot of people have speculated, reasonably, that BF is Bryan Freedman and that Baldoni might have hired Freedman as early as August (which would also explain how they put these huge filings and timelines together "so fast" after Lively filed her lawsuit). If Nathan was the one to recommend Freedman, and Nathan also has the pre-existing relationship with Wallace which is how he got pulled into the Baldoni thing, there is an implication that Freedman could be implicated in the alleged smear campaign.

Lively chose not to add Freedman as a defendant when she amended her complaint, but a lot of people online speculate that they were at least thinking about it because of that "BF" reference in the texts. The whole things is dicey because attorney-client communications are privileged -- what if discussion of the campaign against Lively flowed through Freedman, who represents all parties? You can pierce AC privilege if the attorney is part of a conspiracy to illegal conduct. But the bar is high because that privilege is pretty sacrosanct.

I am fascinated by this aspect of this case and interested to see if it goes anywhere. The Freedman stuff is a real rabbit hole. I was really stunned when I read that old THR profile of Freedman and Jed Wallace's name popped up. Also finding out he repped not only Megyn Kelly but also Perez Hilton. It's all very interesting.

Oh, that’s so interesting, I was not aware of that “BF” text. That link adds a new dimension to Lively’s reaction against Freedman taking her deposition — the idea that he may have been personally involved with the PR campaign himself and may in effect be a fact witness if the veil gets pierced. Sheesh!!

[Anonymous]

Today has quickly become crazy Blake conspiracy theory day.

[Anonymous]

So was their request regarding the deposition not written and on the docket? Would love to know exactly what they requested regarding Freedman's deposition and how they articulated it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So was their request regarding the deposition not written and on the docket? Would love to know exactly what they requested regarding Freedman's deposition and how they articulated it.

No, it wasn't on the docket, they just made the request directly to Lively's attorneys. Here is what Freedman said at the February hearing about it:

"As a matter of fact, we made a request to take Ms. Lively's deposition as soon as possible. We don't need necessarily documents for that deposition, you know, at a date that's sufficient for her. We would like to be able to take her deposition in the case. We don't think we need any documents for that deposition. For other depositions, it's going to be important to understand some of the other documents that we don't have and that are in the possession of the other parties that we are unaware of."

And the judge's response:

"Depositions are not going to go forward until we know who the parties are in the case, because I am not going to have depositions done twice unless there's some very good reason for that."

[Anonymous]

14:28 again. Looking at the conversation about the deposition, I actually saw something relevant to the conversation about the motion to stay discovery in the case against the NYT. Judge Liman said the following about Freedman's push to move discovery along quickly:

THE COURT: One reason for at least extending the initial deadlines in the case management plan does have to do with efficiency. You are going to get document requests, no doubt, from the other side, and you are going to get document requests from the New York Times.

The New York Times is not going to be prejudiced by whatever it is that the Lively parties have asked for. They are going to have the right to demand documents even if Lively hasn't demanded those documents.

If I agreed with what you have suggested, then you may have to do the same document review twice. The same thing goes for the other side, for every party that is involved, even if it's just documents, there's some inefficiency to doing a document review twice.

That is not to say depositions. Depositions are not going to go forward until we know who the parties are in the case, because I am not going to have depositions done twice unless there's some very good reason for that.

Based on this, I actually think there's a good chance Liman will stay discovery in the NYT case until the MTD is decided upon, especially with Freeman saying they already intend to correct their complaint to address the group pleading issue. Liman's whole point is that rushing discovery is actually inefficient because if you start discovery before you have a handle on parties and pleadings, you risk having to repeat discovery, which is a waste of everyone's time. He's right.

[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 agree. The Wayfarer parties have a lot of leash here because of the way Lively and NYT went about things in the first place. That’s why Lively’s attempt to muzzle freedman didn’t work (hypocritical to say he was trying the case in the media when she did the same on a larger scale). Similarly, hard for the nyt to say oh it’s an unfair group pleading when they colluded with Lively for months on the piece. Freedman can say—and rightly so—that in the beginning it wasn’t clear who did what, just that they were all working together. He’ll amend the complaint and keep it moving, but BL and the Times have behaved so badly it’s hard to see the judge lecturing Freedman on a few technical and procedural issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:28 again. Looking at the conversation about the deposition, I actually saw something relevant to the conversation about the motion to stay discovery in the case against the NYT. Judge Liman said the following about Freedman's push to move discovery along quickly:

THE COURT: One reason for at least extending the initial deadlines in the case management plan does have to do with efficiency. You are going to get document requests, no doubt, from the other side, and you are going to get document requests from the New York Times.

The New York Times is not going to be prejudiced by whatever it is that the Lively parties have asked for. They are going to have the right to demand documents even if Lively hasn't demanded those documents.

If I agreed with what you have suggested, then you may have to do the same document review twice. The same thing goes for the other side, for every party that is involved, even if it's just documents, there's some inefficiency to doing a document review twice.

That is not to say depositions. Depositions are not going to go forward until we know who the parties are in the case, because I am not going to have depositions done twice unless there's some very good reason for that.

Based on this, I actually think there's a good chance Liman will stay discovery in the NYT case until the MTD is decided upon, especially with Freeman saying they already intend to correct their complaint to address the group pleading issue. Liman's whole point is that rushing discovery is actually inefficient because if you start discovery before you have a handle on parties and pleadings, you risk having to repeat discovery, which is a waste of everyone's time. He's right.

It doesn’t matter in the case of NYT. They’re a party to the case regardless of the outcome of the MTD and will be subject to discovery a deposition no matter what (as defendant or witness).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:28 again. Looking at the conversation about the deposition, I actually saw something relevant to the conversation about the motion to stay discovery in the case against the NYT. Judge Liman said the following about Freedman's push to move discovery along quickly:

THE COURT: One reason for at least extending the initial deadlines in the case management plan does have to do with efficiency. You are going to get document requests, no doubt, from the other side, and you are going to get document requests from the New York Times.

The New York Times is not going to be prejudiced by whatever it is that the Lively parties have asked for. They are going to have the right to demand documents even if Lively hasn't demanded those documents.

If I agreed with what you have suggested, then you may have to do the same document review twice. The same thing goes for the other side, for every party that is involved, even if it's just documents, there's some inefficiency to doing a document review twice.

That is not to say depositions. Depositions are not going to go forward until we know who the parties are in the case, because I am not going to have depositions done twice unless there's some very good reason for that.

Based on this, I actually think there's a good chance Liman will stay discovery in the NYT case until the MTD is decided upon, especially with Freeman saying they already intend to correct their complaint to address the group pleading issue. Liman's whole point is that rushing discovery is actually inefficient because if you start discovery before you have a handle on parties and pleadings, you risk having to repeat discovery, which is a waste of everyone's time. He's right.

It doesn’t matter in the case of NYT. They’re a party to the case regardless of the outcome of the MTD and will be subject to discovery a deposition no matter what (as defendant or witness).

DP, but what am I missing? Seems like they won't be a party to the case anymore if all Baldoni's claims against them are dismissed. They can still have deps taken as a third party, but it won't be the same.

[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 agree. The Wayfarer parties have a lot of leash here because of the way Lively and NYT went about things in the first place. That’s why Lively’s attempt to muzzle freedman didn’t work (hypocritical to say he was trying the case in the media when she did the same on a larger scale). Similarly, hard for the nyt to say oh it’s an unfair group pleading when they colluded with Lively for months on the piece. Freedman can say—and rightly so—that in the beginning it wasn’t clear who did what, just that they were all working together. He’ll amend the complaint and keep it moving, but BL and the Times have behaved so badly it’s hard to see the judge lecturing Freedman on a few technical and procedural issues.

Once again - proper pleading is not “technical and procedural” to the extent you are trying to claim it is trivial. It’s not like they used the wrong front. To non-lawyers it might seem unimportant but it is actually a key part of the case. They can’t just wave hands and say “they all conspired!” (Is there even a conspiracy claim?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol, ok two hours as opposed to hundreds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:28 again. Looking at the conversation about the deposition, I actually saw something relevant to the conversation about the motion to stay discovery in the case against the NYT. Judge Liman said the following about Freedman's push to move discovery along quickly:

THE COURT: One reason for at least extending the initial deadlines in the case management plan does have to do with efficiency. You are going to get document requests, no doubt, from the other side, and you are going to get document requests from the New York Times.

The New York Times is not going to be prejudiced by whatever it is that the Lively parties have asked for. They are going to have the right to demand documents even if Lively hasn't demanded those documents.

If I agreed with what you have suggested, then you may have to do the same document review twice. The same thing goes for the other side, for every party that is involved, even if it's just documents, there's some inefficiency to doing a document review twice.

That is not to say depositions. Depositions are not going to go forward until we know who the parties are in the case, because I am not going to have depositions done twice unless there's some very good reason for that.

Based on this, I actually think there's a good chance Liman will stay discovery in the NYT case until the MTD is decided upon, especially with Freeman saying they already intend to correct their complaint to address the group pleading issue. Liman's whole point is that rushing discovery is actually inefficient because if you start discovery before you have a handle on parties and pleadings, you risk having to repeat discovery, which is a waste of everyone's time. He's right.

It doesn’t matter in the case of NYT. They’re a party to the case regardless of the outcome of the MTD and will be subject to discovery a deposition no matter what (as defendant or witness).

DP, but what am I missing? Seems like they won't be a party to the case anymore if all Baldoni's claims against them are dismissed. They can still have deps taken as a third party, but it won't be the same.

You can get documents from third parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:28 again. Looking at the conversation about the deposition, I actually saw something relevant to the conversation about the motion to stay discovery in the case against the NYT. Judge Liman said the following about Freedman's push to move discovery along quickly:

THE COURT: One reason for at least extending the initial deadlines in the case management plan does have to do with efficiency. You are going to get document requests, no doubt, from the other side, and you are going to get document requests from the New York Times.

The New York Times is not going to be prejudiced by whatever it is that the Lively parties have asked for. They are going to have the right to demand documents even if Lively hasn't demanded those documents.

If I agreed with what you have suggested, then you may have to do the same document review twice. The same thing goes for the other side, for every party that is involved, even if it's just documents, there's some inefficiency to doing a document review twice.

That is not to say depositions. Depositions are not going to go forward until we know who the parties are in the case, because I am not going to have depositions done twice unless there's some very good reason for that.

Based on this, I actually think there's a good chance Liman will stay discovery in the NYT case until the MTD is decided upon, especially with Freeman saying they already intend to correct their complaint to address the group pleading issue. Liman's whole point is that rushing discovery is actually inefficient because if you start discovery before you have a handle on parties and pleadings, you risk having to repeat discovery, which is a waste of everyone's time. He's right.

It doesn’t matter in the case of NYT. They’re a party to the case regardless of the outcome of the MTD and will be subject to discovery a deposition no matter what (as defendant or witness).

DP, but what am I missing? Seems like they won't be a party to the case anymore if all Baldoni's claims against them are dismissed. They can still have deps taken as a third party, but it won't be the same.

You are correct. PP is confused. Obviously if the claims against the NYT are dismissed, they are no longer a party.

I'm guessing PP meant they would still be a third party, but as has already been explained, being a third-party who might be subject to discovery requests is very different from actually being a party to the case itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you’ve got this all wrong here. 25 or not, IF is a Clooney. If anything, JS was the brokest and likely least powerful person on the set. BL took IF, a Clooney, under her wing. Someone nearly 20 yrs younger and was having sleepovers with her. JS is Blake’s actual peer and they didn’t seem to have nearly the same amount of closeness. Blake likes power and people she can get something from. In the case of Colleen, she wanted her book. For all of her so called naïveté, IF was the only person who had enough sense to not comment on this mess and that’s because, ladies and gentlemen “she’s a clooney!!”