Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

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 believe it was in the Sloane response that Freedman said new information had come to light that they would add into their amended pleading, so that one at least should be fairly different.

[Anonymous]

On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Multiple amended complaints are common when the plaintiff is a person or a suit is brought as a class action, most as common when plaintiff tiff is a corporation. I have had many cases as defense counsel where plaintiffs filed three or more complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Multiple amended complaints are common when the plaintiff is a person or a suit is brought as a class action, most as common when plaintiff tiff is a corporation. I have had many cases as defense counsel where plaintiffs filed three or more complaints.

But I bet zero of them had to deal with incorporating in something like this wacky statement of facts. You are trying to make it sound like all of this is totally normal, nothing to see here, and lol it is not.

[Anonymous]

RR is getting roasted on so many sites with his MTD comments:

https://people.com/ryan-reynolds-slams-justin-baldoni-thin-skinned-outrage-over-nicepool-motion-to-dismiss-lawsuit-11699849

And BF has spun a nice response on the legal implications of bullying.

Let’s see how this plays out. Can’t wait!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Multiple amended complaints are common when the plaintiff is a person or a suit is brought as a class action, most as common when plaintiff tiff is a corporation. I have had many cases as defense counsel where plaintiffs filed three or more complaints.

+1 have been gone for a day so just catching up and it’s shocking how easily people focus on small things and make them a big deal. Comments like “the group pleading is a huge problem for freedman” and “if the judge lets him amend his complaint” and “why on earth the timeline”. Some of the statements are just so over dramatized. This is a case that could drag on for years. There will be many amendments, motions and hearings. People are acting as if BF needed to show his entire hand in one round. It’s a long process. BF did exactly what he needed to do, which was file this quickly and get the public on his clients side. He’s now being mostly professional and letting the Lively parties sink themselves with some pretty outrageous behavior (SNL, Ari, Ryan’s hugely unprofessional MTD). People keep saying BF wants to settle when actually Lively risks the most at trial. If the public is any reflection of a potential jury, they have a lot to worry about.

[Anonymous]

The sad part is that this is supposed to be a story about domestic violence. RR and BL are completely tone deaf when responding in such a way.

I really think they are just to the point of not caring anymore. It never seemed to be about DV for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Multiple amended complaints are common when the plaintiff is a person or a suit is brought as a class action, most as common when plaintiff tiff is a corporation. I have had many cases as defense counsel where plaintiffs filed three or more complaints.

But I bet zero of them had to deal with incorporating in something like this wacky statement of facts. You are trying to make it sound like all of this is totally normal, nothing to see here, and lol it is not.

Trust me, the average class action lawsuit has a far wackier set of facts.

[Anonymous]

People keep saying BF wants to settle when actually Lively risks the most at trial. If the public is any reflection of a potential jury, they have a lot to worry about.

The people who comment online about this are super dialed in. I don't think they'll have any problem finding a jury who knows little about the case. It's a pretty niche thing that feels big because there's so much content out there for people who follow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Multiple amended complaints are common when the plaintiff is a person or a suit is brought as a class action, most as common when plaintiff tiff is a corporation. I have had many cases as defense counsel where plaintiffs filed three or more complaints.

But I bet zero of them had to deal with incorporating in something like this wacky statement of facts. You are trying to make it sound like all of this is totally normal, nothing to see here, and lol it is not.

Trust me, the average class action lawsuit has a far wackier set of facts.

You’re deliberately misunderstanding the issue with the attachment that’s going to be struck, but whatevs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People keep saying BF wants to settle when actually Lively risks the most at trial. If the public is any reflection of a potential jury, they have a lot to worry about.

The people who comment online about this are super dialed in. I don't think they'll have any problem finding a jury who knows little about the case. It's a pretty niche thing that feels big because there's so much content out there for people who follow it.

That’s not my point. My point is that a jury presented with the same facts we’ve been presented with would likely skew in favor of JB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking Ryan and Blake are going to apologize should quickly rethink that lmao

Apologize to who? Baldoni? Why?

Yes people thought Blake and Ryan would settle then publicly apology. That's never ever happening

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.

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?"

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.

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.

This all just sounds like a bunch of projection and speculation to me. Like something people hope is true but it's based on nothing.

Occam's razor says that Lively sued because she believes her allegations and her husband supports her because he believes his wife. This just feels like a gossip columnist trying to make it more interesting than it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

I don't get how anyone could think Reynold's MTD "throws Blake under the bus." I read it and don't see anything that would negatively impact her case. They have the same lawyers. Blake's MTD is due tomorrow and I assume they were drafted in tandem, and that Reynold's MTD was designed to pave the way for Lively's, enabling her to incorporate some of his arguments in order to use her limited space to make other arguments for the claims that only concern her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People keep saying BF wants to settle when actually Lively risks the most at trial. If the public is any reflection of a potential jury, they have a lot to worry about.

The people who comment online about this are super dialed in. I don't think they'll have any problem finding a jury who knows little about the case. It's a pretty niche thing that feels big because there's so much content out there for people who follow it.

Maybe. Blake is going to have to get some coaching on this (former crisis PR in the celeb world). If she's as awful in fluffy interviews as she might be being deposed, luck.to them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking Ryan and Blake are going to apologize should quickly rethink that lmao

Apologize to who? Baldoni? Why?

Yes people thought Blake and Ryan would settle then publicly apology. That's never ever happening

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.

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?"

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.

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.

This all just sounds like a bunch of projection and speculation to me. Like something people hope is true but it's based on nothing.

Occam's razor says that Lively sued because she believes her allegations and her husband supports her because he believes his wife. This just feels like a gossip columnist trying to make it more interesting than it is.

Actually, I think the prevailing theory is that Blake never intended to sue and had planned for this to be a PR battle only. Remember this all started with a CRD complaint and an article. She was backed into a corner to sue after JB’s strong reaction to the nyt article.