Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

I don’t think I’ve ever litigated a case (mostly representing defendants) without there being multiple amended complaints. It’s absolutely commonplace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

I don’t think I’ve ever litigated a case (mostly representing defendants) without there being multiple amended complaints. It’s absolutely commonplace?

Not intended to be a question, typed too fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

Yeah, I think people are confused about the group pleading argument.

Group pleading is not necessarily just procedural. It's only just a procedural issue if you actually can articulate your claims against each individual defendant. But a group pleading this convoluted runs the risk of being a substantive problem because once you pull apart the group pleading, there may be no there there.

This is why it is relevant that Wayfarer made no effort to address the group pleading issues when they amended the complaint the first time. To the contrary, they made them worse by adding additional facts and information while keeping all parties pled together as one, so creating additional narrative that they are trying to assign to all parties even though, just for example, the NYT obviously had nothing to do with stuff Lively might have said or done on the set of the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

I am not the person who said they would be a party to the case no matter what. My point is that discovery of third parties is not llimited to depositions, they can also be required to produce documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blake has made numerous comments about how wacko her stage mom is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!”

JB was not broke and certainly not lacking in power. He's a millionaire, and he was the director. Come on.

Ferrer is not "a Clooney." Her dad is George Clooney's cousin. It's not clear she has any relationship with Clooney at all.

I don't think we really have much idea at all of the relationships between Lively and Ferrer, Lively and Slate, or Lively and Hoover. We also don't know why Ferrer chose not to comment, nor why Slate and Sklenar and Hoover decided they did want to comment. There's actually a lot about this situation we dont' know at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

I am not the person who said they would be a party to the case no matter what. My point is that discovery of third parties is not llimited to depositions, they can also be required to produce documents.

Yes but as Liman himself noted a the hearing, it matters greatly for discovery whether someone is a party or not, as it can impact what they are expected to produce and how. So it makes sense to first determine whether they will be a party, and THEN serve discovery, rather than risk having to serve it twice because you didn't take the time to sort this out first.

This is the judge's own explanation at the February hearing for why he rejected Freedman's requests to proceed with discovery immediately instead of taking a slower approach until these initial pleadings that will determine which parties and pleadings remain are decided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!”

JB was not broke and certainly not lacking in power. He's a millionaire, and he was the director. Come on.

Ferrer is not "a Clooney." Her dad is George Clooney's cousin. It's not clear she has any relationship with Clooney at all.

I don't think we really have much idea at all of the relationships between Lively and Ferrer, Lively and Slate, or Lively and Hoover. We also don't know why Ferrer chose not to comment, nor why Slate and Sklenar and Hoover decided they did want to comment. There's actually a lot about this situation we dont' know at all.

Your biases are showing b/c you totally misread my comment. I said JS (Jenny Slate) was the brokest and least powerful person on set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

I am not the person who said they would be a party to the case no matter what. My point is that discovery of third parties is not llimited to depositions, they can also be required to produce documents.

Yes but as Liman himself noted a the hearing, it matters greatly for discovery whether someone is a party or not, as it can impact what they are expected to produce and how. So it makes sense to first determine whether they will be a party, and THEN serve discovery, rather than risk having to serve it twice because you didn't take the time to sort this out first.

This is the judge's own explanation at the February hearing for why he rejected Freedman's requests to proceed with discovery immediately instead of taking a slower approach until these initial pleadings that will determine which parties and pleadings remain are decided.

He also said the wanted to move the case quickly to trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!”

JB was not broke and certainly not lacking in power. He's a millionaire, and he was the director. Come on.

Ferrer is not "a Clooney." Her dad is George Clooney's cousin. It's not clear she has any relationship with Clooney at all.

I don't think we really have much idea at all of the relationships between Lively and Ferrer, Lively and Slate, or Lively and Hoover. We also don't know why Ferrer chose not to comment, nor why Slate and Sklenar and Hoover decided they did want to comment. There's actually a lot about this situation we dont' know at all.

In addition to being related to Clooney, both of her parents are actors. Dad was in Star Wars. She’s not some unprotected delicate flower with no power and support, no matter how much you want her to be to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!”

JB was not broke and certainly not lacking in power. He's a millionaire, and he was the director. Come on.

Ferrer is not "a Clooney." Her dad is George Clooney's cousin. It's not clear she has any relationship with Clooney at all.

I don't think we really have much idea at all of the relationships between Lively and Ferrer, Lively and Slate, or Lively and Hoover. We also don't know why Ferrer chose not to comment, nor why Slate and Sklenar and Hoover decided they did want to comment. There's actually a lot about this situation we dont' know at all.

Your biases are showing b/c you totally misread my comment. I said JS (Jenny Slate) was the brokest and least powerful person on set.

I did misread, sorry.

I still disagree because Slate is older and has worked on movie sets before. She also has real market power. I had ZERO interest in this movie but I remember seeing a trailer and saying "wait, is that Jenny Slate? I love her, should I go see this movie?" She attracts a different audience and offers a coolness factor that the rest of the cast doesn't.

Being distantly related to George Clooney does not make you a savvy or powerful person. I think Ferrer largely just did what she was told here. She likely followed the directions of her director, her agent, her family, etc., and that's why she's been less vocal. It's not a reflection of what she actually thinks. Whereas I'm sure if Jenny Slate had asked her agent before hand if she should comment on Lively's complaint, her agent would have said, "ummmmmmm, maybe hold off, let's see where this goes." But Slate is older and more established and decided to speak up because she wanted to. She had a lot more agency both on the set and afterwards than Ferrer has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

I am not the person who said they would be a party to the case no matter what. My point is that discovery of third parties is not llimited to depositions, they can also be required to produce documents.

Yes but as Liman himself noted a the hearing, it matters greatly for discovery whether someone is a party or not, as it can impact what they are expected to produce and how. So it makes sense to first determine whether they will be a party, and THEN serve discovery, rather than risk having to serve it twice because you didn't take the time to sort this out first.

This is the judge's own explanation at the February hearing for why he rejected Freedman's requests to proceed with discovery immediately instead of taking a slower approach until these initial pleadings that will determine which parties and pleadings remain are decided.

He also said the wanted to move the case quickly to trial.

Yes but his (meaning Liman's) whole point is that it is NOT efficient to rush discovery before you've hammered out these early pleadings because it risks having to repeat discovery. If they start discovery, and then a bunch of parties get dismissed and all the pleadings get narrowed via MTDs, then they might have to redo a bunch of that discovery. And he is correct. Submitting, for instance, interrogatories to the NYT as a defendant in a defamation action is VERY different than submitting interrogatories to them as a third-party who might have some useful information. Same with document subpoenas, and definitely true for depositions.

If the goal is to get the case to trial expediently, there is no advantage to jumping the gun on discovery -- it might actually push everything back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

I am not the person who said they would be a party to the case no matter what. My point is that discovery of third parties is not llimited to depositions, they can also be required to produce documents.

Yes but as Liman himself noted a the hearing, it matters greatly for discovery whether someone is a party or not, as it can impact what they are expected to produce and how. So it makes sense to first determine whether they will be a party, and THEN serve discovery, rather than risk having to serve it twice because you didn't take the time to sort this out first.

This is the judge's own explanation at the February hearing for why he rejected Freedman's requests to proceed with discovery immediately instead of taking a slower approach until these initial pleadings that will determine which parties and pleadings remain are decided.

He also said the wanted to move the case quickly to trial.

Yes but his (meaning Liman's) whole point is that it is NOT efficient to rush discovery before you've hammered out these early pleadings because it risks having to repeat discovery. If they start discovery, and then a bunch of parties get dismissed and all the pleadings get narrowed via MTDs, then they might have to redo a bunch of that discovery. And he is correct. Submitting, for instance, interrogatories to the NYT as a defendant in a defamation action is VERY different than submitting interrogatories to them as a third-party who might have some useful information. Same with document subpoenas, and definitely true for depositions.

If the goal is to get the case to trial expediently, there is no advantage to jumping the gun on discovery -- it might actually push everything back.

He was worried about the reverse though, wasn’t he? Because Blake was talking about adding additional defendants. Their counsel would also want a chance to depose her. Not sure the same concerns apply when going from party to third party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not what people mean when they say “a party to a case”

I am not the person who said they would be a party to the case no matter what. My point is that discovery of third parties is not llimited to depositions, they can also be required to produce documents.

Yes but as Liman himself noted a the hearing, it matters greatly for discovery whether someone is a party or not, as it can impact what they are expected to produce and how. So it makes sense to first determine whether they will be a party, and THEN serve discovery, rather than risk having to serve it twice because you didn't take the time to sort this out first.

This is the judge's own explanation at the February hearing for why he rejected Freedman's requests to proceed with discovery immediately instead of taking a slower approach until these initial pleadings that will determine which parties and pleadings remain are decided.

He also said the wanted to move the case quickly to trial.

Yes but his (meaning Liman's) whole point is that it is NOT efficient to rush discovery before you've hammered out these early pleadings because it risks having to repeat discovery. If they start discovery, and then a bunch of parties get dismissed and all the pleadings get narrowed via MTDs, then they might have to redo a bunch of that discovery. And he is correct. Submitting, for instance, interrogatories to the NYT as a defendant in a defamation action is VERY different than submitting interrogatories to them as a third-party who might have some useful information. Same with document subpoenas, and definitely true for depositions.

If the goal is to get the case to trial expediently, there is no advantage to jumping the gun on discovery -- it might actually push everything back.

He was worried about the reverse though, wasn’t he? Because Blake was talking about adding additional defendants. Their counsel would also want a chance to depose her. Not sure the same concerns apply when going from party to third party.

Or to say it more succinctly, adding parties creates a need for more discovery, dropping parties does not.