Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The docket says there was oral arguments on Monday but I haven't heard anything about that. I guess they weren't public? Would be curious to know what that was about. Probably not the motion to stay discovery but what? A status hearing? Perhaps something related to discovery that has already been marked as "attorneys eyes only" and thus not open to the public? |
Anonymous
Yeah, I don't know. Only appears on the Lively docket and not the docket for the Baldoni case. |
Anonymous
| Lively and Renyolds seem desperate and shrill at this point. It’s like, enough whining already. |
Anonymous
Did something happen? |
Anonymous
|
This Reddit thread documenting 20 years of Blake’s terror is gold. What a deep dive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlakeLivelyVictims/comments/1j6ylwy/megathread_full_list_of_20_years_of_blake_livelys/ |
Anonymous
They’re on tilt. They know it’s over. Someone is advising them to act like Trump and admit no fault, pedal to the metal. They are gullible, stupid, and arrogant. |
Anonymous
|
That doesn't reflect what I'm seeing in the legal papers, and it's not like Freedman's really crushing this legal battle:
1. Freedman has already admitted he's going to have to refile his complaint to deal with his group pleading problem. 2. He's in danger of having his Statement of Alternative Facts struck, and parties have asked the judge to ignore it in considering their MTD. 3. Freedman has stated he doesn't intend to file his own Motion to Dismiss, unless something changes. 4. The judge has opined that the New York Times has a decent chance of winning their motion to dismiss (in deciding to grant their requested stay on discovery). 5. Freedman argued for a much narrower, lighter protective order and lost that battle. 6. I haven't heard him appearing on TV a lot or leaking a bunch of information about the case, after Judge Liman threatened to sanction parties who did so in violation of ethics rules etc. I'm sure Lively and Reynolds will have their challenges with this case, but to me it seems like things have been going pretty well for them recently. I don't think "it's over" in any way for Lively etc, but go off. |
Anonymous
I don't even think winning this case redeems them because of stuff like this coming out. They're too toxic in a PR sense. |
Anonymous
| In fact the group pleading problem is such a giant issue for Freedman that he has asked the court, if it allows him to amend the complaint to fix this problem (which it probably will), to rule on all the motions to dismiss first so that he only has to rewrite it one time lol. Sad. |
Anonymous
Yep. |
Anonymous
I don't really like Blake Lively but this list is kind of stupid. Like first off, they list a bunch of stuff as "sexual harassment/sexual assault" where no one accused Lively or Reynolds of harassment or assault. Now, that doesn't mean it's not, but one of the major debates about the Lively/Baldoni thing is whether the stuff she's alleging is sexual harassment or not (and I don't even think everything she alleges constitutes harassment). So it's disingenuous to list, for instance, Lively improvising "smacking Anna Kendrick's butt" in a playful way as "sexual assault." If that's sexual assault (and Kendrick has never indicated she thinks it is), then what Baldoni did to Blake is too. See how that works? Also a ton of these are unverified gossip and blind items, and at least some of them are not true or exaggerations. Again, the whole debate in the IEWU drama is that Baldoni is saying Lively is exaggerating or lying about him doing things in order to ruin his reputation and extort him. So including unsourced, unverified rumors in a list like this is, again, disingenuous because this is actually even worse than what Baldoni is accusing Lively of (at least Lively's accusations are based on real events and interactions and not just some blind item she read online). The stuff about her racially insensitive actions/remarks is a genuine issue with Lively and a list of those incidents and discussion of the problems there would be totally valid. She also has a reputation for being difficult to work with, and discussing the verified instances where that has been the case would be valid. But this list is not a "deep dive." It's actually really misleading and includes a bunch of stuff taken out of context, or that is just flat out made up. You can't endorse stuff like this and then turn around and argue that Lively is wrong for claiming that Baldoni sexually harassed her when his actions made her uncomfortable on set. You can't have different rules depending on which celebrity you like or dislike. Or you can, but I don't have to respect it. |
Anonymous
Snark aside, I actually don't understand how this is going to work. I guess it means Liman can dismiss some claims with prejudice (if he agrees with any of the MTD arguments not premised on the group pleading issue) and then when Freedman refiles he won't include those claims? So like say Freedman agrees to dismiss all extortion claims against all defendants, the defamation claim agains the NYT, and all claims against Sloane, with prejudice. And then he dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice (so the defamation claims against Lively and Reynolds, the tortious interference claim against Reynolds, and the CA false light claim against the NYT). For the record, I'm not saying this is what I think Liman will do, just trying to give a mix of dismissed with prejudice and dismissed without. So then Freedman can replead, assuming the court allows it (which I think they usually do). But he can only replead the claims dismissed without prejudice, right? So they separate out all those claims and make it clear which are being alleged by which plaintiffs against which defendants (and this will vary a lot, right, because for instance Sarowitz has no tortious interference claim, the alleged defamation by Lively in the CRD and NYT article doesn't involve Reynolds (who was not quoted in either), and so on. So the complaint is going to look way different from either of the complaints that have been filed so far and will likely have to articulate different facts to make these allegations clear. Right? Well then with new pleadings and new facts, will the defendants be able to file a new round of MTDs? Because it's basically a new case at that point -- the claims are going to look so different. It seems unfair to force the defendants to depend on this round of MTDs for dismissal when you have this huge, glaring group pleading issue that has to be fixed before the complaint makes clear what the allegations are against each defendant. But then Liman is not going to want to have to rule on MTDs again for the corrected pleadings, right? That would be annoying. I am a lawyer but not a litigator and have no real experience with something like this. I'm sure some of what I'm asking here sounds dumb or obvious to actual litigators and sorry for that. But I'm just struggling to wrap my head around how this works because the group pleading issue seems like a big enough problem that fixing it will essentially be a do-over for the Wayfarer parties and in that case do the defendants get a do-over too? |
Anonymous
I totally agree. I love the dragon emoji for RR LOL. |
Anonymous
| Anyone thinking Ryan and Blake are going to apologize should quickly rethink that lmao |
Anonymous
Apologize to who? Baldoni? Why? |