Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in?

I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho.

The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour.

Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client).

Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy.

Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category.

Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case.

Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16.

Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used.

Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well.

I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs.

Lawyer here, yes, AEO is traditional only used for business trade secrets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over.

You have this exactly backwards but, go on....

[Anonymous]

What a coincidence, antebellum Blake was bullying and humiliating a Black man on the set of Gossip Girl.

EXCLUSIVE: I was a runner on Gossip Girl and Blake Lively gave me the silent treatment just for saying hello to her - and she acted like a bully to the crew​
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14456047/I-runner-Gossip-Girl-Blake-Lively-bully-crew.html

[Anonymous]

It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a coincidence, antebellum Blake was bullying and humiliating a Black man on the set of Gossip Girl.

EXCLUSIVE: I was a runner on Gossip Girl and Blake Lively gave me the silent treatment just for saying hello to her - and she acted like a bully to the crew​
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14456047/I-runner-Gossip-Girl-Blake-Lively-bully-crew.html

Just a reminder that as between Lively and Baldoni, it’s Baldoni/Wayfarer who has been sued for discrimination and retaliation by a black employee who was hired because Wayfarer wanted someone who looked like him, then didn’t like it when he actually spoke up on racial issues and labeled him an angry black man, and ultimately terminated him without severance even though Wayfarer had in every other instance granted severance when the employee was not black. Big pockets Sarowitz settled the lawsuit with a payout and (undoubtedly) an NDA.

So these rumors and whispers are fun to post I’m sure, but let’s remember what was actually considered an actionable offense strong enough to merit a payout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over.

You have this exactly backwards but, go on....

Yeah, somebody in this thread posts these incitements to Lively and Reynolds to settle and write a big check every 10 pages or so, as though they believe Lively and Reynolds are reading this thread lol. This thread is such a weird mix of attorney commentary and bananatown celeb nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over.

You have this exactly backwards but, go on....

I agree Blake will probably win in court - or get this squashed before it makes it there - seems like hiring the Shapiro firm almost guarantees that result.

But I do think Blake and Ryan have taken a huge hit with the public. Time will tell I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

On the call, to me, it seemed like she was asking for protection specifically on behalf of third parties. For example, any texts or communications between Lively and Reynolds that didn’t involve security or medical records could not be marked AEO. Not much protection for Lively there. To be honest, I took the AEO request as directed more to protect Lively’s friends than herself (while recognizing that any attempt to protect herself outside of security and medical records probably wouldn’t fly anyway).

So yeah, it’s interesting that TikTok atty has a different opinion, and I’m sure TikTok provides them with a pro-Baldoni audience that is giving them a lot of views lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

On the call, to me, it seemed like she was asking for protection specifically on behalf of third parties. For example, any texts or communications between Lively and Reynolds that didn’t involve security or medical records could not be marked AEO. Not much protection for Lively there. To be honest, I took the AEO request as directed more to protect Lively’s friends than herself (while recognizing that any attempt to protect herself outside of security and medical records probably wouldn’t fly anyway).

So yeah, it’s interesting that TikTok atty has a different opinion, and I’m sure TikTok provides them with a pro-Baldoni audience that is giving them a lot of views lol.

Her communication with her friends, I.e. Blake’s communications.That would not be worthy of protection.

Anyway, it sounds like the judge was leaning towards the Freedman approach which was AEO only for first 48 hours and then can be challenged. The only parties who may have legitimately protectable info are the pr firms, with respect to client identity if not already public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a coincidence, antebellum Blake was bullying and humiliating a Black man on the set of Gossip Girl.

EXCLUSIVE: I was a runner on Gossip Girl and Blake Lively gave me the silent treatment just for saying hello to her - and she acted like a bully to the crew​
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14456047/I-runner-Gossip-Girl-Blake-Lively-bully-crew.html

He looks like a real delicate flower to be so afraid of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how perspective differs. A lawyer commentator on TikTok thought Blake's argument came off as very entitled, as she is asking for special protection for communications that otherwise would not be entitled for it solely because of her fame.

On the call, to me, it seemed like she was asking for protection specifically on behalf of third parties. For example, any texts or communications between Lively and Reynolds that didn’t involve security or medical records could not be marked AEO. Not much protection for Lively there. To be honest, I took the AEO request as directed more to protect Lively’s friends than herself (while recognizing that any attempt to protect herself outside of security and medical records probably wouldn’t fly anyway).

So yeah, it’s interesting that TikTok atty has a different opinion, and I’m sure TikTok provides them with a pro-Baldoni audience that is giving them a lot of views lol.

Her communication with her friends, I.e. Blake’s communications.That would not be worthy of protection.

Anyway, it sounds like the judge was leaning towards the Freedman approach which was AEO only for first 48 hours and then can be challenged. The only parties who may have legitimately protectable info are the pr firms, with respect to client identity if not already public.

Also, it sounds like if challenged, party who used designation would have to take it to judge and justify to maintain protection.

[Anonymous]

I thought the protective order generally used by the court included a designation of confidential that could be put under seal, and Lively's attorneys asked additionally for more liberal use of AEO. So even if he leaves AEO only for trade secrets and such, can't medical records and sensitive communications just be marked confidential?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the protective order generally used by the court included a designation of confidential that could be put under seal, and Lively's attorneys asked additionally for more liberal use of AEO. So even if he leaves AEO only for trade secrets and such, can't medical records and sensitive communications just be marked confidential?

Of course, she wants more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan and Blake need to accept the L and move on. Write Justin a check and apologize. Trying to strong arm and muscle the public into believing your hoax bullshit will never work. It's over.

You have this exactly backwards but, go on....

I agree Blake will probably win in court - or get this squashed before it makes it there - seems like hiring the Shapiro firm almost guarantees that result.

But I do think Blake and Ryan have taken a huge hit with the public. Time will tell I guess.

I think a win for him would be not being labeled as a sexual harasser for the rest of his life, so he can continue to have a career doing what he wants to do. And hopefully he's done that, because I don't think this is necessarily going to have a "fair" outcome. I think she'll get the win in court because she had the advantage of setting the whole thing up just so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So today they planted an obvious puff piece in LA Times but I thought the Blake stans said they didn't plant the hit piece in NY Times? Media is all fake and all for sale.

Most people here (if i understand Blake Stan to be anyone who isn't 100% against her, all the time) thought she brought her story to NYT all along. It's the other side who claims, despite significant evidence, that Baldoni never ran a smear campaign against her because all hate is organic, even when there are pretty much texts bragging about doing it, which we are supposed to buy were all sarcastic.

You don’t see how preparing for something or a hypothetical ‘war games’ scenario (and yes, even sarcasm via text) are not the same as actual ACTION and deployment? Why would they need to deploy anything if basically everyone finds Blake repulsive organically? She’s been a mean girl tyrant bully for 20 years. She can’t help herself apparently.