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:

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.

I think the same logic would apply to a party moving from a defendant to merely a third-party, and especially would apply if Wayfarer intends to replead to address the group pleading issue in their complaint. Substantive changes to what is claimed is not something you want to do after major discovery requests have been responded to because what the claims dictate what is relevant.

Regarding the NYT, repleading is likely to greatly reduce the timeline of the claims against NYT. If NYT is properly only pled into claims related to their article, this means Wayfarer can really only ask them for documents/communications during the time they were working on the article. But the group pleading issue means that technically, they are pled into claims that date back to the spring of 2023. It makes sense to delay discovery at least until Wayfarer has corrected their complaint so that the defendants and claims are properly identified and pled. Until then, it's too hard to know what is relevant.

[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: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.

I think the same logic would apply to a party moving from a defendant to merely a third-party, and especially would apply if Wayfarer intends to replead to address the group pleading issue in their complaint. Substantive changes to what is claimed is not something you want to do after major discovery requests have been responded to because what the claims dictate what is relevant.

Regarding the NYT, repleading is likely to greatly reduce the timeline of the claims against NYT. If NYT is properly only pled into claims related to their article, this means Wayfarer can really only ask them for documents/communications during the time they were working on the article. But the group pleading issue means that technically, they are pled into claims that date back to the spring of 2023. It makes sense to delay discovery at least until Wayfarer has corrected their complaint so that the defendants and claims are properly identified and pled. Until then, it's too hard to know what is relevant.

I don’t think that’s right, there are already allegations about contact between Lively and the New York Times starting earlier. Wayfarer would be entitled to discovery concerning all contacts between the Times and Lively concerning the defendants.

[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: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.

I think the same logic would apply to a party moving from a defendant to merely a third-party, and especially would apply if Wayfarer intends to replead to address the group pleading issue in their complaint. Substantive changes to what is claimed is not something you want to do after major discovery requests have been responded to because what the claims dictate what is relevant.

Regarding the NYT, repleading is likely to greatly reduce the timeline of the claims against NYT. If NYT is properly only pled into claims related to their article, this means Wayfarer can really only ask them for documents/communications during the time they were working on the article. But the group pleading issue means that technically, they are pled into claims that date back to the spring of 2023. It makes sense to delay discovery at least until Wayfarer has corrected their complaint so that the defendants and claims are properly identified and pled. Until then, it's too hard to know what is relevant.

I don’t think that’s right, there are already allegations about contact between Lively and the New York Times starting earlier. Wayfarer would be entitled to discovery concerning all contacts between the Times and Lively concerning the defendants.

But as we saw the Lively's subpoenas, they can't issue broad discovery requests, they must be specific. How far back are they going to go? Unless they can show a reason why discovery should go back more than maybe October (maybe), they won't be able to. But right now the NYT is included (incorrectly) in claims that date back to 2023.

And again, they are going to have to totally reconfigure their claims in their compliant to solve group pleading. If I'm the NYT, I don't want anything to do with discovery until they've filed a proper complaint with no group pleading issue because what the heck does discovery even apply to? It is not clear from the complaint, and I think NYT has a strong argument for saying it has to be remedied before they can ask for anything.

[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:

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.

I think the same logic would apply to a party moving from a defendant to merely a third-party, and especially would apply if Wayfarer intends to replead to address the group pleading issue in their complaint. Substantive changes to what is claimed is not something you want to do after major discovery requests have been responded to because what the claims dictate what is relevant.

Regarding the NYT, repleading is likely to greatly reduce the timeline of the claims against NYT. If NYT is properly only pled into claims related to their article, this means Wayfarer can really only ask them for documents/communications during the time they were working on the article. But the group pleading issue means that technically, they are pled into claims that date back to the spring of 2023. It makes sense to delay discovery at least until Wayfarer has corrected their complaint so that the defendants and claims are properly identified and pled. Until then, it's too hard to know what is relevant.

I don’t think that’s right, there are already allegations about contact between Lively and the New York Times starting earlier. Wayfarer would be entitled to discovery concerning all contacts between the Times and Lively concerning the defendants.

But as we saw the Lively's subpoenas, they can't issue broad discovery requests, they must be specific. How far back are they going to go? Unless they can show a reason why discovery should go back more than maybe October (maybe), they won't be able to. But right now the NYT is included (incorrectly) in claims that date back to 2023.

And again, they are going to have to totally reconfigure their claims in their compliant to solve group pleading. If I'm the NYT, I don't want anything to do with discovery until they've filed a proper complaint with no group pleading issue because what the heck does discovery even apply to? It is not clear from the complaint, and I think NYT has a strong argument for saying it has to be remedied before they can ask for anything.

The request I laid out is narrow in subject so it’s fine even with a two year window. I suspect that Wayfarer might limit the time period to 2024 anyway. Blake’s problem was her requests were not narrow in subject or time.

[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:

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.

I think the same logic would apply to a party moving from a defendant to merely a third-party, and especially would apply if Wayfarer intends to replead to address the group pleading issue in their complaint. Substantive changes to what is claimed is not something you want to do after major discovery requests have been responded to because what the claims dictate what is relevant.

Regarding the NYT, repleading is likely to greatly reduce the timeline of the claims against NYT. If NYT is properly only pled into claims related to their article, this means Wayfarer can really only ask them for documents/communications during the time they were working on the article. But the group pleading issue means that technically, they are pled into claims that date back to the spring of 2023. It makes sense to delay discovery at least until Wayfarer has corrected their complaint so that the defendants and claims are properly identified and pled. Until then, it's too hard to know what is relevant.

I don’t think that’s right, there are already allegations about contact between Lively and the New York Times starting earlier. Wayfarer would be entitled to discovery concerning all contacts between the Times and Lively concerning the defendants.

But as we saw the Lively's subpoenas, they can't issue broad discovery requests, they must be specific. How far back are they going to go? Unless they can show a reason why discovery should go back more than maybe October (maybe), they won't be able to. But right now the NYT is included (incorrectly) in claims that date back to 2023.

And again, they are going to have to totally reconfigure their claims in their compliant to solve group pleading. If I'm the NYT, I don't want anything to do with discovery until they've filed a proper complaint with no group pleading issue because what the heck does discovery even apply to? It is not clear from the complaint, and I think NYT has a strong argument for saying it has to be remedied before they can ask for anything.

The request I laid out is narrow in subject so it’s fine even with a two year window. I suspect that Wayfarer might limit the time period to 2024 anyway. Blake’s problem was her requests were not narrow in subject or time.

+1

[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:

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.

They are not “distant” relatives. It’s not like she found out they were related through AncestryDNA. Isabella’s dad and George are cousins. George has spoken about his aunt (IF’s grandmother) and her impact on his life publicly, and she guest starred on ER when he was on the show. George also gave an emotional eulogy at the memorial when IF’s dad’s brother (Miguel Ferrer of NCIS fame) died. So no they’re not “distant relatives”. Another thing that’s for sure is it’s a family full of actors who know their way around the business.

[Anonymous]

Badoni's letter opposing the NYT's request to stay discovery specifically says it will ask for materials limited in time (suggesting it will be limited from August to December 2024 or thereabouts): "In any event, given that Ms. Lively alleges that the purported negative media campaign did not begin until approximately August 2024 (Dkt. 84, ¶¶ 23 – 26, 28), coupled with the fact that The Times’ article concerning the alleged 'smear campaign' was published in December 2024 (Dkt. 50, ¶ 261), the relevant period for any discovery sought from The Times is extremely narrow, thereby undermining any claim of burdensomeness." Baldoni doesn't claim anything about needing materials to show when Lively began talking to NYT, which you'd think they would stake out in this letter if they meant to do that, but what do I know?

[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?

Right, I’m not saying it’s unusual in and of itself. But it’s not trivial especially when it’s because the complaint is shambolic and improperly pleaded.

[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:

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.

They are not “distant” relatives. It’s not like she found out they were related through AncestryDNA. Isabella’s dad and George are cousins. George has spoken about his aunt (IF’s grandmother) and her impact on his life publicly, and she guest starred on ER when he was on the show. George also gave an emotional eulogy at the memorial when IF’s dad’s brother (Miguel Ferrer of NCIS fame) died. So no they’re not “distant relatives”. Another thing that’s for sure is it’s a family full of actors who know their way around the business.

I don't know any of my parents' cousins, and definitely not their kids. I consider that a distant relative. Fine to say her dad's an actor, but yes she is only distantly related to George.

None of it matters though. She's young and inexperienced. She is not industry-savvy.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, I just found a podcast called reality bites and in the February 23 episode which I’m listening to as I cook dinner, they do a deep drive in to Blake’s contract. I’m fascinated by this because I was really confused about why she was allowed to work without a contract and all of that murkiness.

The only contract Blake ever signed related to this film, which she signed on May 5 2023, was an actor loan out agreement. She had a company just for this purpose BlakeL Inc. - This is apparently fairly standard they say, usually helpful for tax purposes.

This means that if she refused to perform, walked away at any time, refused to promote, she could not be held liable -they could sue the entity but not her.

Without a separate contract bindng her personally, it opened up wayfarer up to these kind of issues.

What is different about this, is that while that first part is fairly common, actors almost always sign a letter of engagement before starting a film. This does protect studios from actors doing what she did which is continually threatening to just walk away with no recourse, but this is the document that Blake never signed, despite continually being asked throughout this whole thing by wayfarer.

Listening to the podcast now, but it seems like this gave her a lot of control to continually threaten to walk away as she did. And continually get more control. The podcast hosts are essentially saying that this was purposeful and planned from the start.

I will listen to the rest of the podcast and let you know if there’s anything interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Right, I’m not saying it’s unusual in and of itself. But it’s not trivial especially when it’s because the complaint is shambolic and improperly pleaded.

Certainly The NY Times has a right to have the Complaint properly plead, but I am also certain that they understand the nature of the allegations against them as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, I just found a podcast called reality bites and in the February 23 episode which I’m listening to as I cook dinner, they do a deep drive in to Blake’s contract. I’m fascinated by this because I was really confused about why she was allowed to work without a contract and all of that murkiness.

The only contract Blake ever signed related to this film, which she signed on May 5 2023, was an actor loan out agreement. She had a company just for this purpose BlakeL Inc. - This is apparently fairly standard they say, usually helpful for tax purposes.

This means that if she refused to perform, walked away at any time, refused to promote, she could not be held liable -they could sue the entity but not her.

Without a separate contract bindng her personally, it opened up wayfarer up to these kind of issues.

What is different about this, is that while that first part is fairly common, actors almost always sign a letter of engagement before starting a film. This does protect studios from actors doing what she did which is continually threatening to just walk away with no recourse, but this is the document that Blake never signed, despite continually being asked throughout this whole thing by wayfarer.

Listening to the podcast now, but it seems like this gave her a lot of control to continually threaten to walk away as she did. And continually get more control. The podcast hosts are essentially saying that this was purposeful and planned from the start.

I will listen to the rest of the podcast and let you know if there’s anything interesting.

But then if she could walk at any time, was wayfarer actually her employer for purposes of SH? What is the threat that wayfarer had over her if she could just leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, I just found a podcast called reality bites and in the February 23 episode which I’m listening to as I cook dinner, they do a deep drive in to Blake’s contract. I’m fascinated by this because I was really confused about why she was allowed to work without a contract and all of that murkiness.

The only contract Blake ever signed related to this film, which she signed on May 5 2023, was an actor loan out agreement. She had a company just for this purpose BlakeL Inc. - This is apparently fairly standard they say, usually helpful for tax purposes.

This means that if she refused to perform, walked away at any time, refused to promote, she could not be held liable -they could sue the entity but not her.

Without a separate contract bindng her personally, it opened up wayfarer up to these kind of issues.

What is different about this, is that while that first part is fairly common, actors almost always sign a letter of engagement before starting a film. This does protect studios from actors doing what she did which is continually threatening to just walk away with no recourse, but this is the document that Blake never signed, despite continually being asked throughout this whole thing by wayfarer.

Listening to the podcast now, but it seems like this gave her a lot of control to continually threaten to walk away as she did. And continually get more control. The podcast hosts are essentially saying that this was purposeful and planned from the start.

I will listen to the rest of the podcast and let you know if there’s anything interesting.

But then if she could walk at any time, was wayfarer actually her employer for purposes of SH? What is the threat that wayfarer had over her if she could just leave?

You are misunderstanding. Wayfair had no threat against her, she could just leave. Doing so, you understand, would pretty much immediately cost them millions? They had cast the younger version of her, so recasting her would require recasting two people and countless delays. But then it just got worse from there, because once they had a few days of filming, that’s 100s of thousands of dollars down the toilet if she bails. Not to mention plunge the cast and crew into unemployment so I would say she had some power there.

Deeper into this podcast and it’s pretty damning. What I find so fascinating is it’s pretty insider baseball and I am sure Blake and Ryan counted on the public never knowing all these ins and outs. They go deep and have receipts for all the times wayfarer demanded that she sign and she refused. Apparently not doing so was a violation of her union and put them under a lot of compliance threats.

It ultimately gave her leverage over her Sony, because they depend on theatrical releases as their bread-and-butter. They are the only major studio that doesn’t have streaming to fall back on. So they were really depending on Blake, which is why they sided with her at every turn.

It’s pretty insidious. On the one hand, Wayfair never should’ve stood for this and they really dropped the ball. On the other hand, it really shows how independent production companies and smaller production companies really don’t have any power against the big players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, I just found a podcast called reality bites and in the February 23 episode which I’m listening to as I cook dinner, they do a deep drive in to Blake’s contract. I’m fascinated by this because I was really confused about why she was allowed to work without a contract and all of that murkiness.

The only contract Blake ever signed related to this film, which she signed on May 5 2023, was an actor loan out agreement. She had a company just for this purpose BlakeL Inc. - This is apparently fairly standard they say, usually helpful for tax purposes.

This means that if she refused to perform, walked away at any time, refused to promote, she could not be held liable -they could sue the entity but not her.

Without a separate contract bindng her personally, it opened up wayfarer up to these kind of issues.

What is different about this, is that while that first part is fairly common, actors almost always sign a letter of engagement before starting a film. This does protect studios from actors doing what she did which is continually threatening to just walk away with no recourse, but this is the document that Blake never signed, despite continually being asked throughout this whole thing by wayfarer.

Listening to the podcast now, but it seems like this gave her a lot of control to continually threaten to walk away as she did. And continually get more control. The podcast hosts are essentially saying that this was purposeful and planned from the start.

I will listen to the rest of the podcast and let you know if there’s anything interesting.

But then if she could walk at any time, was wayfarer actually her employer for purposes of SH? What is the threat that wayfarer had over her if she could just leave?

You are misunderstanding. Wayfair had no threat against her, she could just leave. Doing so, you understand, would pretty much immediately cost them millions? They had cast the younger version of her, so recasting her would require recasting two people and countless delays. But then it just got worse from there, because once they had a few days of filming, that’s 100s of thousands of dollars down the toilet if she bails. Not to mention plunge the cast and crew into unemployment so I would say she had some power there.

Deeper into this podcast and it’s pretty damning. What I find so fascinating is it’s pretty insider baseball and I am sure Blake and Ryan counted on the public never knowing all these ins and outs. They go deep and have receipts for all the times wayfarer demanded that she sign and she refused. Apparently not doing so was a violation of her union and put them under a lot of compliance threats.

It ultimately gave her leverage over her Sony, because they depend on theatrical releases as their bread-and-butter. They are the only major studio that doesn’t have streaming to fall back on. So they were really depending on Blake, which is why they sided with her at every turn.

It’s pretty insidious. On the one hand, Wayfair never should’ve stood for this and they really dropped the ball. On the other hand, it really shows how independent production companies and smaller production companies really don’t have any power against the big players.

I don’t think you understood my question, which was, Can you actually be sexually harassed by an entity that has no control over you? If she is free to walk away at any time, a necessary component of sexual harassment seems to be missing.

[Anonymous]

This contracting podcast, is fascinating, and also list the exact credentials you need to earn a PGA credit. It’s not like a suggested list, there are a stringent list of things you have to meet which Blake did not do - much if it it involves the development of the film, raising funds for the film, putting together the creative team, and budgeting. It’s pretty rare for an actor to get a PGA credit if their production company is not involved in the film. Which Blakes, of course, was not.

I don’t know how the suit is going to go, but it must be embarrassing for her peers to know that she did not deserve that PGA