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
What I don't get is why they aren't fighting this PR battle, at least not effectively. They've lost the public and much of Hollywood, which is what celebs rely on. They planning on digging themselves into such a hole over the next year or so and them coming out on top in a year or so with some technical legal win after their reps are already in the toilet? Some kind of comeback victory? Sorry, I don't see that for them and that's their best case scenario. |
Anonymous
Yes people thought Blake and Ryan would settle then publicly apology. That's never ever happening |
Anonymous
Well obviously. That's a classy move and these two live in the gutter. No idea why anyone would think they'd do that. Crazy. |
Anonymous
Yeah. PP per their usual is dissembling. That’s what RR and BL should do in terms of getting to the end of this mess as fast as possible, and in terms of them each having a moral cord. But BL and RR are IMO rotten narcissist so that’s a no. No one expected them to be smart or ethical, and no one expects them to act like decent people. |
Anonymous
I don't see why anyone would expect them to file a blockbuster lawsuit and then immediately settle and apologize. The case is just starting. There would be no reason to file if not willing to see it through. |
Anonymous
The reason would be to preserve their images and likely careers. They have little to nothing to gain at this point by fighting a protracted legal battle while having the court of public opinion and their peers turn against them. It's not clear to me how you don't understand that. Even with a win I like, "well, the bad guy wins again. Woohoo?" |
Anonymous
Yeah, the Baldoni supporters have been posting for the last 100 pages comments about how Lively needs to settle RIGHT NOW, like they’re on a timeline or something. I don’t get it. I think Freedman excels at settling but not so much at litigating. But Lively wouldn’t have filed at all if the plan was to settle. |
Anonymous
I think by staying in they get to prove that they are the good guys and we’re trying to fix a problem Baldoni created. I know you don’t see it that way. But some people do, and they (Lively etc) probably do as well. |
Anonymous
But you can flip this logic the other direction. There are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they win the case on the merits. And there are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they dropped their case and agreed with Wayfarer's narrative and said they were sorry. If that's the case, they might as well just do what they want, since people will literally hate them no matter what they do. BL/RR believe they are in the right. They believe Baldoni and Heath are hypocritical grifters who posed as male feminists for clout, and then harassed women including Lively on the set of this movie. Lively believes Baldoni sought to film gratuitous sex scenes in this movie featuring domestic violence and sought to prevent that and to prevent Baldoni from making a more salacious cut of the movie. Lively believes that Baldoni and Heath then retaliated against her for doing this by hiring Abel, Nathan, and Jed Wallace to destroy her rep online. And Lively and Reynolds believe that Sarowitz has sworn to spend 100 million dollars to destroy them and kill their careers. You might think all of that is delusional, but they really believe it. That is their reality. So the idea that they would apologize makes no sense at all. It's actually logical, from their perspective, to continue to pursue this. Because Baldoni supporters will hate them no matter what, and their sincere belief is that Baldoni, Heath, and Sarowitz harmed them, maliciously, and have sworn to destroy them anyway. So they might as well fight. I'm sure I'll be called a shameless BL supporter now but note I'm not saying I agree with all this. I just find it bizarre when people are like "oh they're on the ropes, surely they will settle any minute now." It's completely illogical. |
Anonymous
They're reasonably successful Hollywood types so I'm going to assume that even if they are highly unethical and evil people that they do act in a rational manner especially when it comes to their image. It surely was explained to them that opening up the story in the NYT and thhen suing was starting a major battle with a man with very deep pockets, that a lawsuit isn't something where they only get to tell their side, that they could be countersued, that discovery would open up very intimate and personal details of their lives, that many of the court documents would be published on the internet, that there may be a public trial, that Wayfarer will comb through the footage, text messages, and emails to find evidence that contradicts their claims. They went through with the suit so presumably they're committed to this course of action whether their claims are based on truth or lies. I don't see why they would immediately turn around, drop their suit, apologize, and give up a cash settlement before discovery has even begun. That would definitely make them look like liars. I think for the sake of PR they have to vigorously pursue the case. |
Anonymous
That has always been my POV. 1 I truly think Blake believes her lies and 2. They have to see it though. I watch a video with two lawyers who believe its going to trial or at least a settlement will happen right before the trial. Not anytime sooner. Ryan repeatedly called Judtin a predator. Thats not someone whose looking to settle or watch his words |
Anonymous
Freedman's strategy so far has been entirely focused on trying to force a settlement by causing as much bad publicity as possible. In some instances to the detriment of their legal strategy. I think they are about to get pretty annihilated during MTDs, and I think they've really risked a lot of credit with the judge via this timeline they should never have attached and Freedman's argument style. But I think this is how Freedman usually goes about the early litigation phase and it often results in the other side saying "screw it, here's some money, please go away." But I think it's a double-edged sword in this case. In some ways the PR attack as motivated the other side to stick it out, because the PR has so effectively discredited Lively and Reynolds that it's like they have nothing to lose. And then it kind of circles around to where Lively and Reynolds may not feel the only way to rehabilitate their reputation is to push this thing until depositions or trial testimony and try to actually show the world that Baldoni is who they allege him to be, instead of the innocent victim Freedman is presenting him as (the truth is almost certainly somewhere in between, so I don't know if this will work, but I get why they'd pursue it because Baldoni is definitely more culpable for this whole situation than Freedman or his court pleadings contend). |
Anonymous
It's actually not clear at all to me what BL believes or doesn't. There's an alternate theory RR is behind basically all of this and BL is basically along for the ride with a power hungry, super controlling spouse. If she's aligned, sure they'll go to the end of this, but if that's at all at play, they might settle for her own mental health and well being. BUT he appears to be a man who treats his wife like shit so maybe that is not a factor? A lot of the Hollywood PR people come down more on this side. It's a dick measuring contest of power between RR and Baldoni. It's actually a pretty sympathetic take towards Lively without making her a Baldoni victim. |
Anonymous
It's puzzling he chose to include the timeline an an exhibit instead of just publishing it on the website. Any theories on why? The absolute most effective thing Baldoni ever did was post that dance scene footage. It spoke for itself, and, I felt, completely discredited her description of that event and cast doubt on her the rest of her claims (I say this, having been accused of being a Blake PR shill multiple times). Other helpful material was straight up factual - the call sheet listing the set was closed (granted she can still argue they didn't follow it) during the birth scene and the information about the actor's credentials who played the OB. For me, it works much better without the drama and the narrative. But even so, if they wanted the dramatic narrative organized into the timeline with texts, I'm not sure what legally prevents them from publishing those items on a website regardless of whether they are incorporated as an exhibit to the complaint. Indeed Lively's lawyers asked them not to publish the site and the judge did not order them to stop publishing, just to adhere to the ethics rules in general. Even when it comes to the protective order, IIRC it protects information the parties obtained during discovery... Wayfarer and Baldoni didn't obtain the information in the timeline from discovery. It's their own footage and texts and AFAIK they have the right to publish them, unless I'm missing something. |
Anonymous
I think the process of amending the complaint is going to be a little painful for Baldoni’s team. Yes, the judge may dismiss some claims with prejudice and others without prejudice (or just may dismiss many without prejudice). If for example the judge dismisses the NYT claims with prejudice, they can’t include those in the amended complaint. (That’s not per their “agreement” - that’s a court ruling they must follow ha.). At the same time, the court will likely grant Baldoni leave to amend claims dismissed without prejudice (which, in truth, could be all the claims). If the amended claims/allegations supporting them are different enough from the original complaint, it’s possible new motions to dismiss could be filed, but I believe if they are similar enough and just cure the deficiency the judge notes in his orders, they won’t be. Baldoni will need to file a motion to enter the new amended complaint and Lively (or whoever) could oppose that, but they might prefer to file another motion to dismiss if possible because then they get to file two briefs (the motion and reply) rather than just one (the opposition). I think the amended complaint is going to need to incorporate material from the statement of facts attachment, too, since that may be struck. This new complaint could be a whole different animal so it’s a little hard to predict how it will be treated — while amendments are pretty common, this sheer amount of editing and complete revamping that might be needed here is out of the ordinary. |