Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Also - I’m no Blake fan but I do t believe that influencer’s story; she’s out for her 15 minutes. Parasite.

[Anonymous]

*don’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also - I’m no Blake fan but I do t believe that influencer’s story; she’s out for her 15 minutes. Parasite.

Completely. But look how many on here look to TikTok for their news and if they see a video posted - then it is fact to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also - I’m no Blake fan but I do t believe that influencer’s story; she’s out for her 15 minutes. Parasite.

She had a lot of back up…

[Anonymous]

Gossip blinds suggest all is not right between Blake and Colleen Hoover. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP82fRxaJ/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also - I’m no Blake fan but I do t believe that influencer’s story; she’s out for her 15 minutes. Parasite.

Completely. But look how many on here look to TikTok for their news and if they see a video posted - then it is fact to them.

She has video with Blake in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

DP
Actually I think Sloanes Mtd is not good. Can only imagine what that cost her too. Oof. No wonder she’s trying for attys fees under anti SLAPP (not gonna happen)

I don't think she’ll get attorneys fees but I do think the case will be dismissed in large part as against her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

[Anonymous]

Hollywood seems absolutely terrible. Blake has shown herself to be an entitled mean girl who will destroy others. Jenny slate complained about her apt, the company fixed the issue for her, and then she filed a complaint. Justin I do not think sexually harassed anyone but is such a smug, faux feminist I just get the ick. I’m now convinced everyone in Hollywood is a narcissist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gossip blinds suggest all is not right between Blake and Colleen Hoover. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP82fRxaJ/

Seems Blake and Ryan were making promises they couldn’t keep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

My guess is that the subpoena that gave Blake, and therefore the NYTimes, a trove of texts also issued in California

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

My guess is that the subpoena that gave Blake, and therefore the NYTimes, a trove of texts also issued in California

It’s still really unclear if there was a subpoena at all. I’ve been watching the ask 2 lawyers podcast and they still can’t find a lawsuit that predates the nyt getting the texts that could’ve been used to get a subpoena. It’s possible Stephanie jones approached BL on her own b/c she was mad at Jen Abel (like how we BL even know to ask for Jen’s texts) or that the subpoena was fake. Who knows. I guess it will come out in discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gossip blinds suggest all is not right between Blake and Colleen Hoover. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP82fRxaJ/

Seems Blake and Ryan were making promises they couldn’t keep.

Can someone summarize for those of us who don’t have TikTok? I mean, I probably get the gist but would love to know details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gossip blinds suggest all is not right between Blake and Colleen Hoover. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP82fRxaJ/

Seems Blake and Ryan were making promises they couldn’t keep.

Can someone summarize for those of us who don’t have TikTok? I mean, I probably get the gist but would love to know details.

There have been various gossip blinds, some revealed, about a falling out between Hoover and Blake/Ryan over promises made to her that weren’t kept, presumably about the rights to the second book. One suggested she is contemplating suing them.