Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I really think we need more of is the person who comes in to say Blake is big, middle aged, has plastic surgery, and her husband is gay. That's the sort of discourse that really elevates this thread, just can't get enough of that brilliant commentary.

I didn’t post that but…no lies detected.

If people can rehash the birth scene, her appearance and overly sensitive reaction to comments after paparazzi shots, and her dynamic with a reputed control freak husband rewriting parts of a screenplay should also be rehashed.

[Anonymous]

RR filed a motion to dismiss. Says he’s being sued for supporting his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RR filed a motion to dismiss. Says he’s being sued for supporting his wife.

He’s a dork rage monster. Let’s see how long their marriage can take the weight of their poor calculations here.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RR filed a motion to dismiss. Says he’s being sued for supporting his wife.

He’s a dork rage monster. Let’s see how long their marriage can take the weight of their poor calculations here.

I wonder if there’s a financial reason/if he’s trying to protect assets? Like is there a prenup or is his money in a trust or something where he can be protected from her liability? Either way I think he’s soft launching their divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this!

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1jcw3ua/blake_getting_shade_from_america_ferrera/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Yeah, a 20 year old video of America Ferrera rolling her eyes about the plot of Gossip Girl sure is relevant here.

Absolutely relevant. BL was insufferable 20 years ago and it looks like it hasn’t changed.

A page ago, someone was saying "mansplaining isn't harassment" even though actually, yes, mansplaining can be harassment if it's part of a "severe and pervasive" culture.

Yet here, we've got a video of Lively kind of babbling incoherently about what plot developments may or may not be upcoming on the show Gossip Girl, and her costar in the movie they are promoting rolling her eyes because the subject was stupid and Lively was responding badly. Okay. What about Lively's behavior here relates to ANYTHING that Baldoni or Wayfarer are alleging regarding this movie? Are they alleging that she talks too much? Is that an actionable tort? Are they alleging that she spent a lot of time during promotion of IEWU discussing the plot of Gossip Girl? That would be problematic but I don't think it happened.

It is not actually illegal to be "insufferable." And if your point is that Lively is insufferable and has been for 20 years, then the next question is why on earth they cast her in this movie if they knew exactly what kind of personality they were getting. It's like casting Ben Affleck in a movie and then later suing him because he often arrived to set with a hangdog expression, carrying some Dunkin' Donuts. That's not illegal! It's a known feature of his personality. Take it or leave it.

My point is that you are deranged and insufferable, just like BL. Big side eye roll to you also. You become so unhinged when anything is introduced that counters your BL narrative. Do you eat? What about take a potty break? Because you are at this site 24/7. It’s like you are BL, but without 4 young kids.

This is an Entertainment and Pop Culture site, not a legal thread for you to practice all of your legal theorems, fantasies, and mock legal court at 24/7. Other people have differing perspectives and do not want 400+ pages on crap that’s mainly a rehash of your legal theories daily.


I mean no new news have been posted by the courts today, yet you seem to be aiming for rehashing old details, over and over again, just to put more pro BL stuff on this thread.

It’s nauseating and an abuse of forum decorum.

I’m not PP you’re addressing, but have left a complaint about these repeated attacks in Website Feedback. Please take out your aggression somewhere else and please stop doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RR filed a motion to dismiss. Says he’s being sued for supporting his wife.

He’s a dork rage monster. Let’s see how long their marriage can take the weight of their poor calculations here.

I wonder if there’s a financial reason/if he’s trying to protect assets? Like is there a prenup or is his money in a trust or something where he can be protected from her liability? Either way I think he’s soft launching their divorce.

I have no idea about their marriage and maybe they will divorce, but there is no reason for him not to try to get out of the lawsuit if he can, just like the other defendants are doing. I wouldn't read into it. Most of the allegations regarding defamation are against Blake. There are very limited allegations against Reynolds and it makes sense for him not to want to be sued for stuff he didn't say or do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RR filed a motion to dismiss. Says he’s being sued for supporting his wife.

He’s a dork rage monster. Let’s see how long their marriage can take the weight of their poor calculations here.

I wonder if there’s a financial reason/if he’s trying to protect assets? Like is there a prenup or is his money in a trust or something where he can be protected from her liability? Either way I think he’s soft launching their divorce.

I have no idea about their marriage and maybe they will divorce, but there is no reason for him not to try to get out of the lawsuit if he can, just like the other defendants are doing. I wouldn't read into it. Most of the allegations regarding defamation are against Blake. There are very limited allegations against Reynolds and it makes sense for him not to want to be sued for stuff he didn't say or do.

I think they’ll all attempt it, sure. But it’s very difficult to know where BL ends and RR begins. We don’t really know which of them worked with the nyt. They both did the nice pool stuff. The extortion claims are just as valid against RR (he rewrote scenes, threatened JB, tried and failed to buy the movie). He’ll likely have the weakest case. But an added benefit would be to limit any potential liability by protecting any assets that could be considered his alone.

[Anonymous]

RR’s lawyers are arguing calling JB a predator is constitutionally protected opinion. What’s really interesting is the same lawyer represents drake in the umg/kendrick not like us case and is arguing the opposite on drake’s behalf. I’m sure lawyers make contradictory arguments all the time, but because these are both high profile cases, I’m sure someone will call this out. Like your own lawyer doesn’t believe this…

[Anonymous]

Pages 12 and 13 of the motion contain some quotes from Baldoni’s book and podcast where he does come off sounding very not good imho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RR’s lawyers are arguing calling JB a predator is constitutionally protected opinion. What’s really interesting is the same lawyer represents drake in the umg/kendrick not like us case and is arguing the opposite on drake’s behalf. I’m sure lawyers make contradictory arguments all the time, but because these are both high profile cases, I’m sure someone will call this out. Like your own lawyer doesn’t believe this…

Lawyers do this even within the same case. Sloane argued that what she said was opinion, but if it wasn’t, it was factual, and if it wasn’t, it wasn't said with actual malice. It's normal to make these sort of contingent arguments. I don't know anything about the Drake case so can't speak to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pages 12 and 13 of the motion contain some quotes from Baldoni’s book and podcast where he does come off sounding very not good imho.

Watching Ask 2 Lawyers pod. They’re saying these statements are outside of the amended complaint and therefore not allowed in an MTD, so Brian Freedman will say it’s inadmissible. They’re saying this is including in the MTD as a PR stunt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RR’s lawyers are arguing calling JB a predator is constitutionally protected opinion. What’s really interesting is the same lawyer represents drake in the umg/kendrick not like us case and is arguing the opposite on drake’s behalf. I’m sure lawyers make contradictory arguments all the time, but because these are both high profile cases, I’m sure someone will call this out. Like your own lawyer doesn’t believe this…

Lawyers do this even within the same case. Sloane argued that what she said was opinion, but if it wasn’t, it was factual, and if it wasn’t, it wasn't said with actual malice. It's normal to make these sort of contingent arguments. I don't know anything about the Drake case so can't speak to that.

Yeah I think it’s fine for court, but could certainly be pointed out in the PR battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.