Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

Lively is the one party who can’t really make the group pleading argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team. The statements are inadmissible. Baldoni has pled where the statements were made and to whom (Wolverine premiere to wme execs). WME is based in CA, which is where the injury occurred. Ari Emmanuel had publicly bragged about that injury, dropping JB b/c he’s ride or die for RR and BL. The court usually determines choice of law based on where the plaintiff was harmed, so Ryan’s residence is of no significance, in fact I bet he spends enough days per year in CA that he files a tax return there. The MTD is weak on the merits compared to especially the NYT and I don’t think RR submitted it in good faith with the expectation the case would be dismissed. He did it for PR and to make more work for Bryan Freedman (a common legal tactic). When it’s all said and done, all parties will file an MTD simply b/c they can. Doesn’t mean they have a real chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

Regarding the bolded -- that's not what "fairness" means to a judge in a situation like this. A fair judge (and I think Liman is fair) will rule on the MTDs based on whether or not they met the burden to show whether or not Baldoni/Wayfarer has sufficiently pled claims that, if all facts alleged are true, could result in liability. He won't just try to create the "perception of fairness" by dismissing some defendants and keeping others, just for the heck of it. He will dismiss those claims where he believes the MTDs have sufficiently shown failure to make a claim, and he will retain those where they haven't.

Of course, the many people following these lawsuits who have really warped views on how lawsuits work, will cry unfairness if, for instance, Liman dismisses most of the claims against most defendants. But that's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

Regarding the bolded -- that's not what "fairness" means to a judge in a situation like this. A fair judge (and I think Liman is fair) will rule on the MTDs based on whether or not they met the burden to show whether or not Baldoni/Wayfarer has sufficiently pled claims that, if all facts alleged are true, could result in liability. He won't just try to create the "perception of fairness" by dismissing some defendants and keeping others, just for the heck of it. He will dismiss those claims where he believes the MTDs have sufficiently shown failure to make a claim, and he will retain those where they haven't.

Of course, the many people following these lawsuits who have really warped views on how lawsuits work, will cry unfairness if, for instance, Liman dismisses most of the claims against most defendants. But that's not how it works.

He’ll rule on them all at the same time, knowing some will be dismissed and others won’t, that’s my point. If he does it piecemeal, people will call each individual decision biased (or fair) based on their own leaning, but if he rules on everything at once, it’s harder for people to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team. The statements are inadmissible. Baldoni has pled where the statements were made and to whom (Wolverine premiere to wme execs). WME is based in CA, which is where the injury occurred. Ari Emmanuel had publicly bragged about that injury, dropping JB b/c he’s ride or die for RR and BL. The court usually determines choice of law based on where the plaintiff was harmed, so Ryan’s residence is of no significance, in fact I bet he spends enough days per year in CA that he files a tax return there. The MTD is weak on the merits compared to especially the NYT and I don’t think RR submitted it in good faith with the expectation the case would be dismissed. He did it for PR and to make more work for Bryan Freedman (a common legal tactic). When it’s all said and done, all parties will file an MTD simply b/c they can. Doesn’t mean they have a real chance.

The defamation claim against Baldoni might survive, but he certainly had every reason to move to dismiss most of the claims he's grouped in by most of the Wayfarer plaintiffs. It would have been insane not to file a motion to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

Dp, but you cannot bring anything in outside the complaint in the MTD. This must be the person who claims to be a litigator but clearly is not, showing her lack of understanding once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

Regarding the bolded -- that's not what "fairness" means to a judge in a situation like this. A fair judge (and I think Liman is fair) will rule on the MTDs based on whether or not they met the burden to show whether or not Baldoni/Wayfarer has sufficiently pled claims that, if all facts alleged are true, could result in liability. He won't just try to create the "perception of fairness" by dismissing some defendants and keeping others, just for the heck of it. He will dismiss those claims where he believes the MTDs have sufficiently shown failure to make a claim, and he will retain those where they haven't.

Of course, the many people following these lawsuits who have really warped views on how lawsuits work, will cry unfairness if, for instance, Liman dismisses most of the claims against most defendants. But that's not how it works.

He’ll rule on them all at the same time, knowing some will be dismissed and others won’t, that’s my point. If he does it piecemeal, people will call each individual decision biased (or fair) based on their own leaning, but if he rules on everything at once, it’s harder for people to do that.

The Baldoni fans will still cry foul if any claims against his side are dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

Dp, but you cannot bring anything in outside the complaint in the MTD. This must be the person who claims to be a litigator but clearly is not, showing her lack of understanding once again.

Their argument is that he did bring it up in the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

Dp, but you cannot bring anything in outside the complaint in the MTD. This must be the person who claims to be a litigator but clearly is not, showing her lack of understanding once again.

Their argument is that he did bring it up in the complaint.

That isn’t sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

Dp, but you cannot bring anything in outside the complaint in the MTD. This must be the person who claims to be a litigator but clearly is not, showing her lack of understanding once again.

Their argument is that he did bring it up in the complaint.

That isn’t sufficient.

Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

Dp, but you cannot bring anything in outside the complaint in the MTD. This must be the person who claims to be a litigator but clearly is not, showing her lack of understanding once again.

Their argument is that he did bring it up in the complaint.

MTD has to be based on the specific allegations in the complaint, read in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff. Basic stuff. And off handed reference to his book does not bring it within the scope of the allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

Dp, but you cannot bring anything in outside the complaint in the MTD. This must be the person who claims to be a litigator but clearly is not, showing her lack of understanding once again.

Their argument is that he did bring it up in the complaint.

MTD has to be based on the specific allegations in the complaint, read in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff. Basic stuff. And off handed reference to his book does not bring it within the scope of the allegations.

I agree the book quotes in the MTD likely violate the rules and the judge will strike them. I think the lawyers who drafted it know this but, as with the amended complaint, have decided the PR value of including them in pleadings is worth the potential negatives from a legal perspective. Lively's side was losing the PR battle, they are trying to even things out by raising more about Baldoni's history and quoting his own words, which unfortunately for Baldoni, *do* work against him. The male feminist schtick does make him look and sound insincere and hypocritical.

Though I will note that Baldoni's complaint doesn't just make "off handed reference" to his book. For instance, the complaint says this:

In another instance, as Lively and Baldoni were developing their scenes, Lively said, “I don’t want it to look like porn” and then offered up that she had never seen porn in her life (a very personal fact). Baldoni complimented her and said “that’s wonderful” because unfortunately he was first exposed to it when he was ten years old, and struggled with a porn addiction for a period of his life; he writes openly about this in both his books Boys Will Be Human (written for young boys) and Man Enough (written for men), addressing pornography as a societal problem. Anyone who knows or has done any research on Baldoni would have knowledge of this, and it can in no way be characterized as inappropriate, especially after opening the door to the discussion by disclosing something highly personal.

While I still think RR's MTD goes to far, that's more than a passing reference. the complaint is introducing Baldoni's books as evidence that his discussion of pornography with Lively could not have been harassment. He's saying that his conversations about pornography with Lively were a continuation of his public commentary on the subject that she misunderstood, and thus not part of a pattern of harassment. I think RR's references in his MTD are a bit of a stretch, but I do think that mentions like the one above open the door for Lively to discuss (and quote) Baldon's book in her MTD, especially on the issues of pornography and sexual assault/lack of consent, as Baldoni specifically mentions his books' and podcast's discussion of these issues in his complaint. So he has definitely opened the door to that even at the MTD phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.