Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

PP here and I didn't go watch the videos. I'm lazy plus you didn't link them.

But I also don't think someone doing a post while drunk or high means something is seriously wrong with a person. If it was all the time, yeah I'd wonder if they had a drinking problem. But sometimes people have a few drinks and then make jokes about what if I made ice out of Diet Pepsi and put it in my Diet Pepsi, and it's not a problem. They just got tipsy and were funny for a bit and then went on with their normal life.

Hoover is clearly very successful and productive. It's hard to write that many books, and her books are hugely successful. And she built the whole thing herself -- didn't she self publish initially? That's impressive. That's more persuasive evidence of the kind of person she is than a couple social media posts where she seems tipsy.

Several influencers have posted the video and the comments are not kind. I imagine she will take them down at some point today.

Well that's kind of mean then. I'm so glad I don't rely on social media to help me do my job/make money. Who is she hurting? I can't imagine picking someone apart in this way.

Social media is not always kind. If you get on and post a video very drunk or high, to millions of people, yeah folks are going to talk. You can feel sad about it, but it kind of is what it is.

It does seem like a cry for help or for attention or something. I mean it’s not like she was getting on there and announcing a new book. She was literally saying she learned how to freeze Diet Pepsi cubes and that she may fire her staff. Super bizarre.

I watched the videos and she doesn't seem very drunk or high. She's doing a bit but I don't think it's landing. It's possible she's having a hard time or might be depressed, or it's possible that she was trying to be funny and it didn't work because she's not an actor or comedian. But I don't think she's out of it because the series of videos were clearly planned out and she appears to have filmed them herself, including like cuts to her putting the ice cubes in her cup and then later a follow up regarding the merchandise.

I definitely think the thing about "I'm going to be broke" is a joke. She refers to the person pricing her merchandise as her "boss" (this is clearly a joke) and I don't think she is actually worried about money. The video has a pop up link to there website so people can purchase the merchandise that's on sale. It's an ad. Tone is weird, for sure, but I'm not calling a wellness check on her or anything. She's fine.

[Anonymous]

What website do I go to get a summary for dummies of this lawsuit? I followed in the beginning but lost interest for awhile and I’m not up to speed…thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What website do I go to get a summary for dummies of this lawsuit? I followed in the beginning but lost interest for awhile and I’m not up to speed…thanks.

Go to the Reddit sight and the sub thread on lawsuits.

What I love about the Reddit site is that there are moderators there who not only try to balance the discussion, but allow a very mature conversation of pro/con to naturally occur. But they do moderate and even send out housekeeping reminders to the threads to remind how discourse should take place.

They have videos and many items that have been approved for posting.

I loved dcum until this thread happened. It’s controlled by a pro-lively influencer/paid person, and is so off the rails on one sided as a result.

Reddit gets a bad name a lot. But not that discussion and not that thread. People like it and the moderators are happy about its quality. That’s where I will get my news from going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

Not PP you are responding to. I like the long posts. I find them informative and I learn a lot from them. Some of the details give me info I was not aware of. They are in compliance with DCUM rules. What’s not in compliance are these personal attacks every 50 pages and the complaints about wild conspiracy theories about posters in thread instead of in Website feedback. That person should stop that, it’s ruining the thread.

I finally get why you keep posting here instead of bombarding Reddit with your minute by minute opinions. It’s because this site is quasi anonymous, and to post on Reddit, you have to sign in. You know those moderators will know who you are and will stop this nonsense.

I’m ruining the thread—bs! Your on an entertainment thread for pop culture, one that has threads on Megan Markel and what she’s cooking up, and Justin Theroux’s new 30 year old wife, but want to dedicate this broad entertainment thread to your legal analyses?
Are you writing a book?

Now I understand why you chose this thread. If Jeff can lock it again, nothing would make me happier.

If not, I will keep posting what’s interesting to me, as we all can do, and you do so frequently and reflexively.

DP but this thread is explicitly about the legal battle. The thread title and the OP got into the weeds on the legal stuff immediately. It might be in the Entertainment forum, but this thread is about the legal stuff. There is no forum for ongoing legal battles, so this is the best place for this particular conversation. If you aren't interested in discussions of the legal pleadings, the arguments made in the complaints, the facts alleged by both sides, this just might not be the right place for you.

If you just want to talk about the celeb gossip, you could try starting a thread titled something like "Lively/Baldoni gossip thread -- no legal discussion" or something. I don't know if Jeff would allow it. He really hates this thread already, and he hated the last two threads about Blake Lively as well, both of which were much more gossipy and less law-focused. He locked (and maybe deleted) the last one because it devolved into gossip and name calling, and then he locked this one for a time as well for the same reason, but reopened it because people said they really wanted to talk about the legal cases and would behave. So now that's what people do -- post about the legal proceedings, and when people start detouring into idle gossip and especially if they get nasty and start insulting other posters, that gets reported and removed. Because reopening the thread was premised on people discussing the legal case.

You can take that or leave it. I didn't make the rules of the thread, but those ARE the rules of the thread.

I agree with this 100%, except that I’m not psyched about PP starting a thread that just contains the grossest parts of this thread - I don’t think that should exist here, but I’m not Jeff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

Not PP you are responding to. I like the long posts. I find them informative and I learn a lot from them. Some of the details give me info I was not aware of. They are in compliance with DCUM rules. What’s not in compliance are these personal attacks every 50 pages and the complaints about wild conspiracy theories about posters in thread instead of in Website feedback. That person should stop that, it’s ruining the thread.

I finally get why you keep posting here instead of bombarding Reddit with your minute by minute opinions. It’s because this site is quasi anonymous, and to post on Reddit, you have to sign in. You know those moderators will know who you are and will stop this nonsense.

I’m ruining the thread—bs! Your on an entertainment thread for pop culture, one that has threads on Megan Markel and what she’s cooking up, and Justin Theroux’s new 30 year old wife, but want to dedicate this broad entertainment thread to your legal analyses?
Are you writing a book?

Now I understand why you chose this thread. If Jeff can lock it again, nothing would make me happier.

If not, I will keep posting what’s interesting to me, as we all can do, and you do so frequently and reflexively.

DP but this thread is explicitly about the legal battle. The thread title and the OP got into the weeds on the legal stuff immediately. It might be in the Entertainment forum, but this thread is about the legal stuff. There is no forum for ongoing legal battles, so this is the best place for this particular conversation. If you aren't interested in discussions of the legal pleadings, the arguments made in the complaints, the facts alleged by both sides, this just might not be the right place for you.

If you just want to talk about the celeb gossip, you could try starting a thread titled something like "Lively/Baldoni gossip thread -- no legal discussion" or something. I don't know if Jeff would allow it. He really hates this thread already, and he hated the last two threads about Blake Lively as well, both of which were much more gossipy and less law-focused. He locked (and maybe deleted) the last one because it devolved into gossip and name calling, and then he locked this one for a time as well for the same reason, but reopened it because people said they really wanted to talk about the legal cases and would behave. So now that's what people do -- post about the legal proceedings, and when people start detouring into idle gossip and especially if they get nasty and start insulting other posters, that gets reported and removed. Because reopening the thread was premised on people discussing the legal case.

You can take that or leave it. I didn't make the rules of the thread, but those ARE the rules of the thread.

I agree with this 100%, except that I’m not psyched about PP starting a thread that just contains the grossest parts of this thread - I don’t think that should exist here, but I’m not Jeff.

I'm the PP and I don't have an issue with a gossip thread (I don't think I'd participate) but I also don't think it would work because even if there are people who just want to post about the gossip angle without the legal stuff, it would quickly be overrun with people actually want to talk about the lawsuits, but only in a vacuum where no one challenges blatantly false or misogynistic takes on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

Not PP you are responding to. I like the long posts. I find them informative and I learn a lot from them. Some of the details give me info I was not aware of. They are in compliance with DCUM rules. What’s not in compliance are these personal attacks every 50 pages and the complaints about wild conspiracy theories about posters in thread instead of in Website feedback. That person should stop that, it’s ruining the thread.

I finally get why you keep posting here instead of bombarding Reddit with your minute by minute opinions. It’s because this site is quasi anonymous, and to post on Reddit, you have to sign in. You know those moderators will know who you are and will stop this nonsense.

I’m ruining the thread—bs! Your on an entertainment thread for pop culture, one that has threads on Megan Markel and what she’s cooking up, and Justin Theroux’s new 30 year old wife, but want to dedicate this broad entertainment thread to your legal analyses?
Are you writing a book?

Now I understand why you chose this thread. If Jeff can lock it again, nothing would make me happier.

If not, I will keep posting what’s interesting to me, as we all can do, and you do so frequently and reflexively.

DP but this thread is explicitly about the legal battle. The thread title and the OP got into the weeds on the legal stuff immediately. It might be in the Entertainment forum, but this thread is about the legal stuff. There is no forum for ongoing legal battles, so this is the best place for this particular conversation. If you aren't interested in discussions of the legal pleadings, the arguments made in the complaints, the facts alleged by both sides, this just might not be the right place for you.

If you just want to talk about the celeb gossip, you could try starting a thread titled something like "Lively/Baldoni gossip thread -- no legal discussion" or something. I don't know if Jeff would allow it. He really hates this thread already, and he hated the last two threads about Blake Lively as well, both of which were much more gossipy and less law-focused. He locked (and maybe deleted) the last one because it devolved into gossip and name calling, and then he locked this one for a time as well for the same reason, but reopened it because people said they really wanted to talk about the legal cases and would behave. So now that's what people do -- post about the legal proceedings, and when people start detouring into idle gossip and especially if they get nasty and start insulting other posters, that gets reported and removed. Because reopening the thread was premised on people discussing the legal case.

You can take that or leave it. I didn't make the rules of the thread, but those ARE the rules of the thread.

No it’s not. This is a broad thread! Anything about this movie can be discussed here. I think that you and others want to make it your free, anonymous legal site, but this is not the purpose of this. It’s a part of but not the totality of this site. Dcum does not work this way for any thread!

Reddit does it well. It has a topic and then subthreads specify to stuff dealing with that topic. The it ends with us/lawsuits site is great. It’s moderated daily by a few moderators. Not all comments get to come in, and I’ve found more balanced legal analysis across the board, from many resources. The moderators keep it within the guidelines, and followers love it and the content, which is where I have always gone for content to repost here.

This forum has disappointed. I like that Reddit makes you put skin in the game by only allowing comments by valid emails. That forces everyone to keep the comments more professional across the board. Also, they title new stuff, so you can always find the new stuff being discussed or case docs.

Go Reddit! It’s actually a top site for this particular topic.

[Anonymous]

I am not the poster who also posts on Reddit. I mostly only go to Reddit when it’s linked here. You continuously confuse different people in this thread.

If personal and direct insults to other posters are actually allowed on DCUM I would just like to know because I will start to volley them back to you lot instead of sucking it up and trying to be the bigger person.

FWIW I really appreciate that you/your side hasn't done that. That's why I don't understand why people are so upset there are some pro-Lively posts here. Even if one finds them personally annoying, they never resort to insults and personal digs at posters or the celebrities involved, so it's really rather easy to scroll by them if one is not interested (I read them, and sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but it's always cordial).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What website do I go to get a summary for dummies of this lawsuit? I followed in the beginning but lost interest for awhile and I’m not up to speed…thanks.

DP, but The Cut ran a decent summary here: https://www.thecut.com/article/blake-lively-lawsuit-against-justin-baldoni-explained.html

It's current through the filing of the lawsuits, basically. Since then, the PR firm representing Lively, the NYT, and Lively's husband Ryan Reynolds have filed motions to dismiss. The judge issued a protective order so discovery can begin in earnest, although multiple parties (NYT and PR firm) have requested stays in discovery until the motions to dismiss are decided and they know whether they are still parties in the case or are just third parties where a slightly different set of rules (for the protective order at least) will apply. I think trial is currently scheduled to start about a year from now in 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the poster who also posts on Reddit. I mostly only go to Reddit when it’s linked here. You continuously confuse different people in this thread.

If personal and direct insults to other posters are actually allowed on DCUM I would just like to know because I will start to volley them back to you lot instead of sucking it up and trying to be the bigger person.

FWIW I really appreciate that you/your side hasn't done that. That's why I don't understand why people are so upset there are some pro-Lively posts here. Even if one finds them personally annoying, they never resort to insults and personal digs at posters or the celebrities involved, so it's really rather easy to scroll by them if one is not interested (I read them, and sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but it's always cordial).

What you wrote is an absolute lie. Can’t you stop?

All of this is, to use an old term, boards on boards. It used to earn people permanent bans on discussion forums. I know when when I started posting on this thread, about 350 pages back (I was hesitant to post at all since the mods permanently locked the prior thread), I was immediately swarmed, attacked, and accused of working for Baldoni. I don’t. I wasn’t commenting on popular opinion, I was commenting on reported facts about IEWU.

Just cut the shit and talk MTDs or costuming controversies. Your “side” - how childish you are- is not cordial. Knock it off, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the poster who also posts on Reddit. I mostly only go to Reddit when it’s linked here. You continuously confuse different people in this thread.

If personal and direct insults to other posters are actually allowed on DCUM I would just like to know because I will start to volley them back to you lot instead of sucking it up and trying to be the bigger person.

FWIW I really appreciate that you/your side hasn't done that. That's why I don't understand why people are so upset there are some pro-Lively posts here. Even if one finds them personally annoying, they never resort to insults and personal digs at posters or the celebrities involved, so it's really rather easy to scroll by them if one is not interested (I read them, and sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but it's always cordial).

What you wrote is an absolute lie. Can’t you stop?

All of this is, to use an old term, boards on boards. It used to earn people permanent bans on discussion forums. I know when when I started posting on this thread, about 350 pages back (I was hesitant to post at all since the mods permanently locked the prior thread), I was immediately swarmed, attacked, and accused of working for Baldoni. I don’t. I wasn’t commenting on popular opinion, I was commenting on reported facts about IEWU.

Just cut the shit and talk MTDs or costuming controversies. Your “side” - how childish you are- is not cordial. Knock it off, please.

I am not PP you are responding to. I think that person is a (mostly) Baldoni supporter, but could be wrong.

Why are you talking about posts from 350 pages ago now? People here are saying (and have said for the last 200 pages) that it’s mostly only one side that insults the other, and you’re mostly the person that’s doing it. Why? Please cut it out as multiple people have asked you to.

I would just like to know what the rule is. There have been lots of times in the last 100 pages when I have very much wanted to insult you lol but have refrained because, rules, which I guess right now apply to me and not to thee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the poster who also posts on Reddit. I mostly only go to Reddit when it’s linked here. You continuously confuse different people in this thread.

If personal and direct insults to other posters are actually allowed on DCUM I would just like to know because I will start to volley them back to you lot instead of sucking it up and trying to be the bigger person.

FWIW I really appreciate that you/your side hasn't done that. That's why I don't understand why people are so upset there are some pro-Lively posts here. Even if one finds them personally annoying, they never resort to insults and personal digs at posters or the celebrities involved, so it's really rather easy to scroll by them if one is not interested (I read them, and sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but it's always cordial).

What you wrote is an absolute lie. Can’t you stop?

All of this is, to use an old term, boards on boards. It used to earn people permanent bans on discussion forums. I know when when I started posting on this thread, about 350 pages back (I was hesitant to post at all since the mods permanently locked the prior thread), I was immediately swarmed, attacked, and accused of working for Baldoni. I don’t. I wasn’t commenting on popular opinion, I was commenting on reported facts about IEWU.

Just cut the shit and talk MTDs or costuming controversies. Your “side” - how childish you are- is not cordial. Knock it off, please.

I am not PP you are responding to. I think that person is a (mostly) Baldoni supporter, but could be wrong.

Why are you talking about posts from 350 pages ago now? People here are saying (and have said for the last 200 pages) that it’s mostly only one side that insults the other, and you’re mostly the person that’s doing it. Why? Please cut it out as multiple people have asked you to.

I would just like to know what the rule is. There have been lots of times in the last 100 pages when I have very much wanted to insult you lol but have refrained because, rules, which I guess right now apply to me and not to thee.

So here are the actual rules. Jeff has stated that if there are posts violating them, we hit the report button instead of engaging and moderating (we've probably all been guilty of this).

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/faq.html
I also saw that someone posted a really stupid question. Should I call them an idiot?
No. Site Administrators probably had exactly the same question at some time and will take offense at the inference that they are idiots.
There is a thread that I really hate and I wish people would stop posting in it. Should I post a message saying, "Please stop posting in this thread?"
No, your post will simply make the thread go back to the top of the list of topics and give it additional exposure. If you don't like a thread, don't read it.
Don't all users have a right to free expression and should be able to post anything they like? Isn't it censorship when a Site Administrator interferes with that right?
No and No. We allow great leeway in what users are allowed to say, but Site Administrators reserve the right to delete and/or modify any message at any time for any reason. DCUM is privately owned and operated and, as such, First Amendment rights do not apply (though they are given great reverence).
There's nothing on your site that says that posts need to be constructive, non-ironic or even polite. (an actual justification used by a poster in defense of a non-constructive, ironic, and rude post)
When you respond to posts, please be constructive, non-ironic, and polite. While other posters' questions and/or viewpoints may not seem relevant to you, they may still be important to the poster. Please treat them with respect and respond in a manner in which you would like people to respond to you. Posts that appear to be aimed at "trolling" the forum rather than engaging in construction discussion may be deleted.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni has posted an opposition to Sloane and her PR firm’s motion to stay discovery, arguing that discovery will be easier for Sloane than for NYT, especially now that the PO is issued, and other reasons. While this makes sense to me, I still think the MTD will be granted in the group pleading issue alone. But Freedman suggested he won’t file an amended complaint correcting the group pleading issue until all the MTDs are decided, so we’re at an impasse I guess.

Judge Liman has suggested he wants to prevent the parties from reviewing the same doc 2x, which Sloane will have to do if discovery is not stayed now but they’re knocked out of the case. So I think he will stay, but could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni has posted an opposition to Sloane and her PR firm’s motion to stay discovery, arguing that discovery will be easier for Sloane than for NYT, especially now that the PO is issued, and other reasons. While this makes sense to me, I still think the MTD will be granted in the group pleading issue alone. But Freedman suggested he won’t file an amended complaint correcting the group pleading issue until all the MTDs are decided, so we’re at an impasse I guess.

Judge Liman has suggested he wants to prevent the parties from reviewing the same doc 2x, which Sloane will have to do if discovery is not stayed now but they’re knocked out of the case. So I think he will stay, but could be wrong.

The response is here, if anyone wants to read it: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.135.0.pdf

I think they make fair arguments here -- Sloane doesn't have the same special reasons for staying discovery the NYT did, and the PO offers unusual protection for any disclosures so it's harder to argue irreparable harm from participating in discovery even if the claims against Sloane and Vision are dismissed, whether with or without prejudice.

I could see Liman staying interrogatories but not document disclosure. Regarding doc disclosure, Wayfarer points out that if Sloane feels any of the request are over broad, they can register those objections and have a meet and confer to address. Thus if Sloane contends her involvement in the matter was very minimal, they can disclose docs relevant to that minimal involvement and argue that any requests beyond that are overreach, all without needing a stay. The interrogatories, however, may be a situation where if Sloane's MTD is granted, they may have to do them over again from scratch because interrogatories of a 3rd party are different in nature than those issued to a client. So I could see Liman splitting it up that way, which would allow discovery to proceed but postpone one category of discovery that might more efficiently be conducted once MTDs are ruled upon and a corrected pleading is filed, if any.

[Anonymous]

^meant to type party, not client, whoops

[Anonymous]

I agree!

In the NYT’s motion to dismiss, Judge Liman ruled the day after the opposition was filed, so we may know whether stays are likely to be successful for anyone besides the NYT fairly soon.