Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

Nah, there’s a number of people saying it, not just me. And it’s primarily because you keep pretending to be one but ask questions about text production and then say things like ‘I do litigation for large corporations’.

By the way, the people who (kindly) explained the ins and outs of text production showed why the PO AEO provision was important for third parties.

Others had been saying that the AEO provision wouldn’t even be needed since third parties obviously would only need to produce texts that were actually relevant.

But since an entire 24 hours worth of text exchanges in a string string back and forth would be produced, relevant and not mixed together, the possibility of irrelevant but personal info getting produced would go up.

I maintain that a third party still gets to mark extremely personal info as AEO whether it’s relevant or not. That’s what the PO says and what the judge’s order specifically explains. But if Lively has those same text strings and needs to produce them, she does need to make an additional relevancy determination.

[Anonymous]

*highly* not ‘extremely’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

Nah, there’s a number of people saying it, not just me. And it’s primarily because you keep pretending to be one but ask questions about text production and then say things like ‘I do litigation for large corporations’.

By the way, the people who (kindly) explained the ins and outs of text production showed why the PO AEO provision was important for third parties.

Others had been saying that the AEO provision wouldn’t even be needed since third parties obviously would only need to produce texts that were actually relevant.

But since an entire 24 hours worth of text exchanges in a string string back and forth would be produced, relevant and not mixed together, the possibility of irrelevant but personal info getting produced would go up.

I maintain that a third party still gets to mark extremely personal info as AEO whether it’s relevant or not. That’s what the PO says and what the judge’s order specifically explains. But if Lively has those same text strings and needs to produce them, she does need to make an additional relevancy determination.

That isn’t what the order said. And you’ve admitted your aren’t even a litigator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

You really are an idiot if you believe it’s one person saying this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

Nah, there’s a number of people saying it, not just me. And it’s primarily because you keep pretending to be one but ask questions about text production and then say things like ‘I do litigation for large corporations’.

By the way, the people who (kindly) explained the ins and outs of text production showed why the PO AEO provision was important for third parties.

Others had been saying that the AEO provision wouldn’t even be needed since third parties obviously would only need to produce texts that were actually relevant.

But since an entire 24 hours worth of text exchanges in a string string back and forth would be produced, relevant and not mixed together, the possibility of irrelevant but personal info getting produced would go up.

I maintain that a third party still gets to mark extremely personal info as AEO whether it’s relevant or not. That’s what the PO says and what the judge’s order specifically explains. But if Lively has those same text strings and needs to produce them, she does need to make an additional relevancy determination.

That isn’t what the order said. And you’ve admitted your aren’t even a litigator.

Be specific re what part of this you’re disputing and I’ll admit I’m wrong or show you the language. Otherwise, sorry, no. (And I am indeed a litigator, but not these kinds of cases.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, Judge Liman's order on discovery has just dropped, denying the subpoena for call records as to the Wayfarer parties but allowing as to non parties. Mostly a loss for Lively (who are the non parties who subpoenas were issued to?): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.102.0.pdf

PP again and I think this may actually give Lively the most important thing they wanted, which are Jed Wallace's call records? The subpoenas are denied as to the Wafarer parties but Wallace is excluded from that definition ("Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Melissa Nathan, The Agency Group PR LLC, and Jennifer Abel (collectively, the 'Wayfarer Parties')") -- so I think they get these records from Jed Wallace at least - not sure from who else. That seems important.

The only reason Wallace wasn’t excluded was that his counsel did not object. Not even sure he is on the subpoena as he was not added to the until after the subpoena went out.

I went to check the docket on whether Wallace had objected to producing these call record docs yet and he has not -- it actually looks like it's possible he hasn't been successfully served yet -- summons has been issued but not returned. That doesn't make him seem sketchy at all. If he's lost in the wind I guess he won't have to produce any incriminating documents at all.

[Anonymous]

Sloane has moved to stay discovery until hermotion to dismiss is decided. The Sloane parties reported they received 370 document requests and 18 interrogatories from Wayfarer. They note that Wayfarer has not even attempted to defend their pleadings, only requested to amend.

The docket also lists oral argument today but no details.

[Anonymous]

Taking a break from the legal talks for a second…was watching old reruns the other day and it felt a little deja vu

Alanis
https://images.mubicdn.net/images/film/353470/cache-809129-1661378465/image-w1280.jpg

Northern Exposure
https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Northern-Exposure-cast.jpg?w=768&h=520


https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2023417/rs_1200x1200-230517145555-1200-blake-lively-it-ends-with-us-set.jpg?fit=around%7C1080:1080&output-quality=90&crop=1080:1080;center,top


And the whole Molly Ringwald thing—red hair, pink top, brown skirt and boots.


Did BL borrow these looks for the movie? So, so similar to movies, etc from the 80s. Could just be a coincidence. But the Alanis look?

[Anonymous]

Almost forgot that Scarlett was a red head in Captain A. Wow.

https://cdn.optipic.io/site-2236/images/jackets/captamericascarlettleatherjacket.jpg

[Anonymous]

And here is the article. https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/blake-lively-wardrobe-iewu-movie-631845

[Anonymous]

There was a clip of her standing on stage at the premiere in Copenhagen, clearly stating, “ this is not a movie about domestic violence.”

She wanted so badly to do a big Barbie like romcom. It’s very strange, her whole approach.

Also, someone shared footage of January 5, 2024, first day back on set after the strike, Ryan Reynolds just standing behind her as she filmed a scene. So weird that he was there.

These people live in their own reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And here is the article. https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/blake-lively-wardrobe-iewu-movie-631845

She is very heavy and big-gutted in that outfit on the right. Blake has terrible style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a clip of her standing on stage at the premiere in Copenhagen, clearly stating, “ this is not a movie about domestic violence.”

She wanted so badly to do a big Barbie like romcom. It’s very strange, her whole approach.

Also, someone shared footage of January 5, 2024, first day back on set after the strike, Ryan Reynolds just standing behind her as she filmed a scene. So weird that he was there.

These people live in their own reality.

I just searched for this clip and listened to it and you are so weird. She says it’s about first love AND finding a new best friend AND domestic violence. And honestly, she’s right, isn’t she? The amount of time focusing on the problems in the relationship is not the whole film. It’s a story. But whatever, isolate one sentence she says from everything else.

The obsession some of you have with BL’s appearance is hysterical for a bunch of ladies on an anonymous blog in DC lol. Until you start signing on with a name and linking your high fashion instagrams, I’m just going to assume that you are the frumpiest of frumpsters yourselves who are at least 50 lbs overweight wearing crocks and stuffed into too small lululemons after 2 bratty kids (let alone 4). Oh the horror of looking like Blake Lively after 4 kids, you should be so lucky lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a clip of her standing on stage at the premiere in Copenhagen, clearly stating, “ this is not a movie about domestic violence.”

She wanted so badly to do a big Barbie like romcom. It’s very strange, her whole approach.

Also, someone shared footage of January 5, 2024, first day back on set after the strike, Ryan Reynolds just standing behind her as she filmed a scene. So weird that he was there.

These people live in their own reality.

I just searched for this clip and listened to it and you are so weird. She says it’s about first love AND finding a new best friend AND domestic violence. And honestly, she’s right, isn’t she? The amount of time focusing on the problems in the relationship is not the whole film. It’s a story. But whatever, isolate one sentence she says from everything else.

The obsession some of you have with BL’s appearance is hysterical for a bunch of ladies on an anonymous blog in DC lol. Until you start signing on with a name and linking your high fashion instagrams, I’m just going to assume that you are the frumpiest of frumpsters yourselves who are at least 50 lbs overweight wearing crocks and stuffed into too small lululemons after 2 bratty kids (let alone 4). Oh the horror of looking like Blake Lively after 4 kids, you should be so lucky lol.

I’m quite confident none of us is wearing two pair of pants at once. But if that is your idea of high fashion, have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a clip of her standing on stage at the premiere in Copenhagen, clearly stating, “ this is not a movie about domestic violence.”

She wanted so badly to do a big Barbie like romcom. It’s very strange, her whole approach.

Also, someone shared footage of January 5, 2024, first day back on set after the strike, Ryan Reynolds just standing behind her as she filmed a scene. So weird that he was there.

These people live in their own reality.

I just searched for this clip and listened to it and you are so weird. She says it’s about first love AND finding a new best friend AND domestic violence. And honestly, she’s right, isn’t she? The amount of time focusing on the problems in the relationship is not the whole film. It’s a story. But whatever, isolate one sentence she says from everything else.

The obsession some of you have with BL’s appearance is hysterical for a bunch of ladies on an anonymous blog in DC lol. Until you start signing on with a name and linking your high fashion instagrams, I’m just going to assume that you are the frumpiest of frumpsters yourselves who are at least 50 lbs overweight wearing crocks and stuffed into too small lululemons after 2 bratty kids (let alone 4). Oh the horror of looking like Blake Lively after 4 kids, you should be so lucky lol.

You know, I think we’re entitled as consumers to have opinions on style. Moms are also consumers of the movie and the products (her products) that she marketed to, so we get to have an opinion.

She hijacked the wardrobe for this movie, deciding to not go with trained professionals hired to dress her character, but to instead dress the character based on her own vision, and own clothes from her closet, husband and friends. She felt proud of that choice. She owned that choice. Unfortunately, consumers didn’t like her selections at all.

Then she tried to influence with a hair care line of her own creation. Again, her choice and she was proud of it. She owned it. Once again, consumers didn’t not agree.

But as consumers, we get to disagree and not buy the product or not like the product (or brand). It happens every day.

So to insult moms on a mom’s blog like you are doing here, in a section specifically about entertainment and pop culture featuring thoughts on many celebrities, because what? —we are talking about entertainment and pop culture that we find appealing, is tone deaf!

That’s one of the many purposes that this blog is for. We don’t have to be belabored by your endless paragraphs of legal discussion supporting BL. It’s what you want to discuss and we let you discuss it even if we disagree (or agree). We comment on here because we have opinions about the world of entertainment as consumers, and we feel like sharing, just as you do.

You may not like the comments about her choice of wardrobe for the movie, but they are valid and represent the essence of what this board is about.

Trust me, if moms thought she represented that wardrobe well, they would have given her props. But all I can see is a recycled 80s icon wardrobe worn by some of my favorite 80s entertainers, and a hair style/color worn by RR’s ex, in one of my favorite Marvel movies.

Unfortunately, she did not wear those looks well.