Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh sorry, yes, I did misunderstand. You’ll be fascinated to know that in the one contract she did sign as a loan out. There is a sexual harassment clause.

Weird, huh?

[Anonymous]

Do they have a copy of her contract? I thought it wasn't one of the attachments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh sorry, yes, I did misunderstand. You’ll be fascinated to know that in the one contract she did sign as a loan out. There is a sexual harassment clause.

Weird, huh?

Oh dang. It’s almost like they did plan it.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone say at what point in the timeline Lively threatened to walk? I had thought that she only threatened once during filming (prior to return from hiatus, Jan meeting, etc.) and that she also threatened not to promote the film. Did she also threaten to leave the production before then? And what were her demands? It seems like even without a contract, threatening to leave during production could be negative for her -- I feel like that would be looked at unfavorably by Sony and reported out in the press in bad light.

Also wondering how common it is for this contract situation to play out. I mentioned up thread about Don't Worry Darling and the challenges in that set, and Shia LaBoef did pull out if that movie either last minute or even after filming began. I wonder if other actors do this same thing with contracts to preserve the option of walking if they are unhappy.

[Anonymous]

Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone say at what point in the timeline Lively threatened to walk? I had thought that she only threatened once during filming (prior to return from hiatus, Jan meeting, etc.) and that she also threatened not to promote the film. Did she also threaten to leave the production before then? And what were her demands? It seems like even without a contract, threatening to leave during production could be negative for her -- I feel like that would be looked at unfavorably by Sony and reported out in the press in bad light.

Also wondering how common it is for this contract situation to play out. I mentioned up thread about Don't Worry Darling and the challenges in that set, and Shia LaBoef did pull out if that movie either last minute or even after filming began. I wonder if other actors do this same thing with contracts to preserve the option of walking if they are unhappy.

She threatened to walk on April 25, 2023 according to his famous timeline: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.50.1_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

Wait... is the judge Blake Lively's mother?!

[Anonymous]

But — Freedman is a legal mastermind! The NYT’s motion to dismiss cannot possibly succeed! The NYT is so corrupt! Right? That is what some (not all) folks in this thread have been blasting since last week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But — Freedman is a legal mastermind! The NYT’s motion to dismiss cannot possibly succeed! The NYT is so corrupt! Right? That is what some (not all) folks in this thread have been blasting since last week?

I've felt the MTD had a strong shot all along but even I was surprised to see Liman basically telegraphing that he plans to grant it before Wayfarer has had a chance to plead. That's quite the gauntlet thrown and to be honest, I would not be surprised if Freedman chooses to simply drop the case against the NYT so that they can focus on the more viable claims against Lively, and avoid the embarrassment. If they do it now, after this more minor decision by Liman, they can shift the narrative back to Lively and it won't be as embarrassing as if they respond to the MTD and the Liman issues a decision which might be even harsher than what he's already said.

Like I keep thinking about the MTD calling the Wayfarer complaint a "blunderbuss" and how apt this is for a 220+ page complaint with a glaring group pleading issue and a million tangents, and if I'm Freedman I maybe want to avoid having the judge clearly endorse that viewpoint in a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

I'm not sure that's true. If the argument is that Lively lied in her CRD complaint*, to Sony, to WME, or to other parties, and NYT was simply reporting on those existing complaints, then I can see defamation being dismissed against NYT, but not Lively. The facts of the article originate with Lively, not NYT.

*I am not sure what, if any, protections there are from defamation claims based on allegations in that type of filing. She may have been smart to keep her complaints in those administrative proceedings and not really talk to the press otherwise. I'm not really aware of her directly commenting about the alleged SH in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

The "news side" of the NYT is claiming this hit piece published to destroy ("scalp") a man for Blake and Ryan was entertainment "opinion"? Or were just some select lines of it "opinion"? I guess they have a license to oscillate between straight news and opinion in the very same piece, who knew! In other words, the same line of bulls*** Tucker Carlson and Fox used when they were sued. NYT is a rag and Twoey is a nepo baby PR hack.

The newspaper also said the sole alleged defamatory statement in the article - that the plaintiffs orchestrated a "smear campaign" in retaliation for Lively complaining about sexual harassment - was protected opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone say at what point in the timeline Lively threatened to walk? I had thought that she only threatened once during filming (prior to return from hiatus, Jan meeting, etc.) and that she also threatened not to promote the film. Did she also threaten to leave the production before then? And what were her demands? It seems like even without a contract, threatening to leave during production could be negative for her -- I feel like that would be looked at unfavorably by Sony and reported out in the press in bad light.

Also wondering how common it is for this contract situation to play out. I mentioned up thread about Don't Worry Darling and the challenges in that set, and Shia LaBoef did pull out if that movie either last minute or even after filming began. I wonder if other actors do this same thing with contracts to preserve the option of walking if they are unhappy.

She threatened to walk on April 25, 2023 according to his famous timeline: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.50.1_1.pdf

That was before shooting had even started. She threatened to walk at every There were at least a half a dozen times that I counted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But — Freedman is a legal mastermind! The NYT’s motion to dismiss cannot possibly succeed! The NYT is so corrupt! Right? That is what some (not all) folks in this thread have been blasting since last week?

You weren't aware the newspaper responsible for dragging us into war in Iraq with disinformation is corrupt? $8 trillion wasted and over 940,000 men, women and children dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone say at what point in the timeline Lively threatened to walk? I had thought that she only threatened once during filming (prior to return from hiatus, Jan meeting, etc.) and that she also threatened not to promote the film. Did she also threaten to leave the production before then? And what were her demands? It seems like even without a contract, threatening to leave during production could be negative for her -- I feel like that would be looked at unfavorably by Sony and reported out in the press in bad light.

Also wondering how common it is for this contract situation to play out. I mentioned up thread about Don't Worry Darling and the challenges in that set, and Shia LaBoef did pull out if that movie either last minute or even after filming began. I wonder if other actors do this same thing with contracts to preserve the option of walking if they are unhappy.

She threatened to walk on April 25, 2023 according to his famous timeline: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.50.1_1.pdf

That was before shooting had even started. She threatened to walk at every There were at least a half a dozen times that I counted.

You can list them if you like. I only remembered her saying "you can just recast me" and when I CTRL-F, that's the only example, but I'm sure there could be more.