Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I understand what you’re saying. I was saying that the (outwardly, at least) purpose of Lively’s non-security or medical records privacy request under the AEO PO request appeared more concerned with protecting the communications of third parties than herself, because it would ONLY cover communications with those third parties and would NOT protect communications Lively made with, e.g. her husband.

I’m not sure they will win on this but they had good arguments and have certainly spent thousands of dollars to try to keep Swift’s text messages out of the public eye, which tbh I hope they succeed at. This case is a crazy animal and I don’t need to read Swift’s texts and I don’t think Baldoni does, either - I hope they stay AEO.

There isn’t a legal basis for that— involving your very family friends in embarrassing text conversations isn’t a class of protected documents, particularly when you are the initial plaintiff. Should have thought that through before making Taylor part of her scheme.

Liman noted that he wouldn’t be afraid to sanction parties for disobeying the PO, and Lively’s atty responded with the point that several of the parties in this case made money by feeding information to the press, and that the parties had explicitly bragged in text messages that they could provide information to the public in an untraceable way, and that there was a significant risk of that happening in this case unlike in other matters that had come before Liman. They also noted Ps were operating on a $100M budget and mentioned Sarowitz’s “like dead bodies” threats in making the argument that sanctions would not really be an effective deterrent in this case. Along this really set Freedman off, and I recognize “texts to your very famous friends” isn’t normally an AEO protected category. That said, the Seattle Times standard is “damaging to reputation and privacy” and this would certainly be that. Does anyone really think Baldoni’s people wouldn’t be secretly feeding Swift’s texts to media outlets hoping to create some further news/rift to hurt Lively? Freedman’s high offense here was all for show imho.

I hope they win this AEO PO and I’m glad they made good arguments to support it.

All of this can be addressed via a confidential designation, AEO should be used sparingly. If Liman follows the Freedman suggestion, I expect him to grant it primarily to items submitted by the pr firms,

[Anonymous]

What happens if some of these discovery materials end up used as evidence at trial? Jed Wallace methodology is probably a trade secret but could be highly relevant. Do they close that part to the press?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

Seems like if it’s as clear cut as you certainly seem to believe, then he’d be moving to dismiss on at least some of these supposedly shady claims. But Freedman has already indicated they will not. So you can have your mind made up, but that’s your choice and problem.

It's more nuanced than that. On a motion to dismiss you assume all facts are true, so it's not crazy for him to not file a motion. If you add up all the stuff she claims happened that can legally add up to sexual harassment (I know there's one or two posters here who don't agree). Baldonj has to disprove or contextualize each event. He can still win at trial. I found Lively's complaint strong but to the extent he has provided explanations and proof, I found them compelling. But those are issues of fact, which go to trial.

lol, thanks for all that, but I am a lawyer also and making the simple point that if all the factual evidence were so clear on its face that PP could have made up to their mind, there would be no facts to dispute. PP is just making a choice. (Also, there are like eleven different causes of action and Freedman is challenging NONE of them for any of his clients, though Lively was susceptible to the same group pleading and vagueness traps that Freedman fell into, so I guess their attys did something right.)

[Anonymous]

Team Baldoni (doubling down).

My reason: just because

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team Baldoni (doubling down).

My reason: just because

"That's nice."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens if some of these discovery materials end up used as evidence at trial? Jed Wallace methodology is probably a trade secret but could be highly relevant. Do they close that part to the press?

Jed Wallace methodology isn’t even relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

Seems like if it’s as clear cut as you certainly seem to believe, then he’d be moving to dismiss on at least some of these supposedly shady claims. But Freedman has already indicated they will not. So you can have your mind made up, but that’s your choice and problem.

It's more nuanced than that. On a motion to dismiss you assume all facts are true, so it's not crazy for him to not file a motion. If you add up all the stuff she claims happened that can legally add up to sexual harassment (I know there's one or two posters here who don't agree). Baldonj has to disprove or contextualize each event. He can still win at trial. I found Lively's complaint strong but to the extent he has provided explanations and proof, I found them compelling. But those are issues of fact, which go to trial.

lol, thanks for all that, but I am a lawyer also and making the simple point that if all the factual evidence were so clear on its face that PP could have made up to their mind, there would be no facts to dispute. PP is just making a choice. (Also, there are like eleven different causes of action and Freedman is challenging NONE of them for any of his clients, though Lively was susceptible to the same group pleading and vagueness traps that Freedman fell into, so I guess their attys did something right.)

Dp, and also a lawyer. Your argument makes no sense, what pp clearly said was that the evidence Baldoni has made public convinced her that Blake’s claims were false. I agree with this. None of that evidence comes in on a motion to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens if some of these discovery materials end up used as evidence at trial? Jed Wallace methodology is probably a trade secret but could be highly relevant. Do they close that part to the press?

Jed Wallace methodology isn’t even relevant.

lol that is certainly a take. Strongly disagree and think you are living in a dreamworld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still support him over this lying and/or overly fragile spoiled princess.

Agree. I think it was a weird set as all sets are and I really don’t think he did anything nearly as egregious as 99% of what typically goes down and I think she knows this.

She did a piss poor job of setting any kind of boundaries and she egged him on because this was planned all along.

Seems like if it’s as clear cut as you certainly seem to believe, then he’d be moving to dismiss on at least some of these supposedly shady claims. But Freedman has already indicated they will not. So you can have your mind made up, but that’s your choice and problem.

It's more nuanced than that. On a motion to dismiss you assume all facts are true, so it's not crazy for him to not file a motion. If you add up all the stuff she claims happened that can legally add up to sexual harassment (I know there's one or two posters here who don't agree). Baldonj has to disprove or contextualize each event. He can still win at trial. I found Lively's complaint strong but to the extent he has provided explanations and proof, I found them compelling. But those are issues of fact, which go to trial.

lol, thanks for all that, but I am a lawyer also and making the simple point that if all the factual evidence were so clear on its face that PP could have made up to their mind, there would be no facts to dispute. PP is just making a choice. (Also, there are like eleven different causes of action and Freedman is challenging NONE of them for any of his clients, though Lively was susceptible to the same group pleading and vagueness traps that Freedman fell into, so I guess their attys did something right.)

Dp, and also a lawyer. Your argument makes no sense, what pp clearly said was that the evidence Baldoni has made public convinced her that Blake’s claims were false. I agree with this. None of that evidence comes in on a motion to dismiss.

You can be personally convinced, but these facts are clearly in dispute so to repeat what I said originally, the evidence is obviously not that clear cut. I certainly don’t think it can be reduced to the lying princess/planned it all along views which are the comments I was actually taking issue with, but ymmv.

[Anonymous]

I’m team Baldoni for the sole reason that I don’t think any of her allegations are even SH, even if true. Add in that we know some of them aren’t even true (which we saw with our own eyes), and you just have a big old pile of nothing.

But he signed that sham agreement, so yeah he’s in trouble. But I’m not going to hate someone for signing a sham agreement that he shouldn’t have signed. Whereas I do hate her for lying. That’s my prerogative. I don’t like liars.

I think a lot of people feel this way.

They still both deserve a fair trial, so if i were a juror I’d have to try to put aside my own stuff and listen to the evidence. But today I’m on DCUM and I get to have my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Found a tweet thread from today's hearing. Some new info... Lively's attorney says that Baldoni has requested communications with her security team. Not sure what they mean by "people could figure out where Lively and Reynolds were photographed" means. Maybe PP who listened has insight.

Read this thread makes me think Liman will side with Freedman. When he says he'll hold a contempt hearing if necessary, that to me is indicating he didn't agree with Lively's attorneys about the grave risk of leaks and sanctions not being enough.

https://x.com/innercitypress/status/1897666924131094597

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Found a tweet thread from today's hearing. Some new info... Lively's attorney says that Baldoni has requested communications with her security team. Not sure what they mean by "people could figure out where Lively and Reynolds were photographed" means. Maybe PP who listened has insight.

Read this thread makes me think Liman will side with Freedman. When he says he'll hold a contempt hearing if necessary, that to me is indicating he didn't agree with Lively's attorneys about the grave risk of leaks and sanctions not being enough.

https://x.com/innercitypress/status/1897666924131094597

I don't have a twitter account so can't see that thread but wow this person has already self published a book for Kindle called Hollywood Hearsay: Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni Part 1. Part of me is weirdly tempted to buy it, not because I think it will be good or informative (though maybe! who knows?) but just to see what that even looks like. Wild!

[Anonymous]

The judge is the best shot for lively and the nyt. Neither could win over a jury imo, so they need the judge to throw out or significantly narrow the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is the best shot for lively and the nyt. Neither could win over a jury imo, so they need the judge to throw out or significantly narrow the case.

NYT case will never get to a jury because it's based on nothing. Will fail as a matter of law.

Lively case is the sort that has to settle or go to jury. It's entirely about questions of fact. Would a reasonable person consider that SH? Would a reasonable person find, by a preponderance of evidence, that Baldoni et al's actions constituted retaliation for the SH claims?

I also don't think we have enough evidence from either side to answer that one yet. Much of the critical evidence hasn't even been discovered yet. Like the testimony of third party witnesses, including the other actors and crew on the set. That will be critical in whose narrative wins out. Also, while I know it seems like we've seen every single text and email these people sent in the last year, we haven't. There are entire categories of communications we've never seen, and potentially the most dispositive ones, such as communications between Baldoni and Heath, communications between Lively and her agent, etc. Each side has only shown us the communications that they feel will present their case in the best light. There's a ton missing.

Also in a he said/she said like this, it's bizarre to me to assert a position when you've never heard either of the main parties testify, in their own words. This is general a critical component of a case like this. Everyone is leaning on their perceptions of these two people based on other appearances or what we read in the complaints. Seeing someone on the stand (or in a deposition) telling their story is very different, and is often the critical component of a case like this. Somewhat unfairly, because there's a ton of bias that comes into play in evaluating the truthfulness of a person in testimony. But in harassment cases, people usually want to hear the parties speak and make their claims themselves. I find it so odd how many people seem not to need this. I definitely need it! We don't have enough info yet.

[Anonymous]

Also texts between spouses potentially. Could get very interesting. Blake never should’ve filed. The discovery could be really messy for her.