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
This is my take. I don't think Lively was harassed and I don't think her team is playing some kind of legal jiu jitsu. I think she and Reynolds overplayed their hand and never, ever expected it to get to where we are now (both PR wise and legally) because they thought they had an easy mark to steamroll and destroy. As they themselves have been open about, they've pulled similar moves before. They flexed their power and they did not expect this level of push back from someone they consider a nobody. They wanted total control and rights to the sequel, end of. They were prepared for this to all play out in sick Hollywood PR world and have to be freaking out they've lost that with the public. Again, you can lawyer need out about every motion filed in the lead up to this legal battle, but they've lost the public and the PR war. And that's what you need to maintain celeb status and popularity. If I were Blake or Ryan I'd be flipping my shit right now and it has nothing to do with their lawyers or this case, they shouldn't be in this position in the first place. |
Anonymous
PP. Huh? I’m not team anyone. I have no personal preferences in this case. And I don’t think you understand lawyers. They make arguments. They win some, they lose some. The beauty is they get paid either way. |
Anonymous
+1 I finally read the infamous timeline and it was heartbreaking. There was a point in time during the strike break when BL reached out a few times for the dailies and didn’t get her way, and BL started to escalate from there. It’s pretty hard to read honestly. She presented the 17 pt complaint and demands for editing and other concessions near simultaneously, which to me really undermines her SH claims. The law requires these claims to be made in good faith and without malice (in other words the goal is supposed to be remedy not to extract something you want from someone else). From this point fwd JB and BL only interact through Sony, not directly, and she just gets meaner and meaner. Ryan’s marketing firm takes over the promo at a much greater expense than budgeted and they set up all these promo opportunities with the entire cast excluding Justin. Jen Abel reaches out to Sony multiple times to see how they can include JB to avoid the predictable speculation that would come from this behavior. Saddest of all, JB had thought of this great idea for him to do book Bonanza with Colleen Hoover (before things with BL had soured) but BL even took over that promo engagement too and excluded JB. She takes his face off the poster, his film by credit removed. She threatens TS multiple times (no wonder TS isn’t speaking to her) telling Sony she won’t even make the call to ask for My Tears Richochet if they don’t concede to her demands. Also threatens to not promote the movie if she doesn’t get her edit, which didn’t perform well. She can do all of this because she refused to sign her contract throughout, allowing her to threaten to walk at every turn and waste everyone’s time and money. The texts between Jen and Melissa, when read in their totality, seem above board. They were pretty much taking a don’t fuel the fire approach and let this die down. Heath shared feedback multiple times with Sony to include more talk of DV in Blake’s PR, so this idea that they set her up to look bad is just unfounded. They recommended adjustments multiple times. It goes on and on, but I think there’s more than enough here to show malice and survive MTD. BL is a horrible person. |
Anonymous
It’s hard for me to believe at this point that there are still people who side with her. Because what you described is spot on. She is very much enabled by her team - there are actually adults who presumably went to law school and likely practiced for many years before working for Blake lively who agreed to send multiple emails, threatening her walk offs, knowing full well they had all the power because she had never signed a contract. I cannot imagine that the management and legal team have any credibility left. But I get that Hollywood plays dirty so maybe this is just another power move and I guess I’m naïve to expect lawyers and management for Blake to play fair or think the rules apply to them. I do think it’s a bunch of really crappy people who work with her and for her and it explains why they were able to get this far. Someone rationally tried to explain up thread that blake and Ryan knew this was coming because before any sexual harassment suit would be filed, their team would have sat down and calmly explained to them, your texts will be fair game. Your emails will be fair game, this is going to come out, that is going to come out, and they forged ahead anyway. I now do not believe any of that happened. I now believe they have a team who are as blinded by power as they are or at this point they only have people working for them who tell them what they want to hear. They were very ill advised. |
Anonymous
Nope, YOU are wrong about the process of third party designation of AEO materials, and I have posted the "receipt" in the form of the judge's order below. Third parties can designate very personal materials as AEO, and are not required to make any kind of relevance determination. That isn't their fight. Opposing attorneys receiving the third party materials can later ask for them to be downgraded from AEO if they are actually relevant -- the burden shifts to them to ask for de-designation, and if the third party disagrees, they will need to hash it out with the judge. Several of you have said the wrong thing in this thread repeatedly, so you clearly haven't even read the plain text of the order. Please read it and explain how this says third parties can't mark relevant info as AEO: "The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly personal and intimate information about third parties, and highly personal and intimate information about parties other than information directly relevant to the truth or falsity of any allegation in the complaints in this case.' This case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to harassment. [cites] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cites] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations or who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to the allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client." You are just continually wrong on this issue, and won't admit you're wrong, despite the clear words from the judge. It's bizarre of you. |
Anonymous
The judge doesn't care about "shut[ting] up Blake and her attorneys." You thinking this is part of a judge's calculus is bizarre. If he thought Lively's attorneys were wrong, he would have either kept the PO the way Freedman had wanted it -- with no self-designated AOE designation -- or he would have left the fourth category of "highly personal" materials out of the PO altogether. He did not do that. The judge actually understands how discovery inevitably pulls in non-relevant materials. I think some other folks in the thread are lawyers but I don't think you are one. |
Anonymous
Right! Lawyers win and lose arguments all the time! And even when lawyers lose arguments, they themselves will often be the first to admit it! They aren't precious about it. Freedman lost the PO argument. He went in arguing for a PO where no one could self-designate the AEO category, it needed folks to agree document by document during a meet and confer process. But the judge went with Lively's option, mostly (changing a little language). Freedman lost the PO battle. But folks here won't acknowledge the he lost that argument. It's just so strange. |
Anonymous
You either are dense or pretending to be dense. The definition of what qualifies for AEO is significantly more narrow than Blake wanted. Yes she got her way on which party raises a challenge, but the designating party still bears the burden of establishing that a designation is appropriate. The only winners here were the PR firms which I have already said multiple times. |
Anonymous
| Further we all know that the protective order is being recycled only because Blake bots want to bury how bad the Wallace testimony is for her case. |
Anonymous
You both sound naive to me. I'm an attorney and the stuff in the timeline about her lawyers playing hardball with Wayfarer over her contract does not strike me as out of line. It's aggressive in terms of negotiating, but there are also so many instances of Wayfarer being shady or disorganized that it doesn't really bother me. In particular, they appear to have been negligent in getting the nudity riders reviewed by an IC and submitted to Lively and Ferrer, in Lively's case not sending her nudity rider to her until days after she was originally supposed to film the first sex scene, in Vegas (this was ultimately postponed until after the hiatus, ostensibly because Lively had a sick family member, but I would believe and have no problem with her lying about a family illness to avoid filming a sex scene before nudity riders were signed -- that's a perfectly reasonable delay tactic IMO because she'd be looking to get a key workplace protection in place before doing a scene that required intimacy and nudity, which carries real risks for an actress in terms of producing footage of your body in compromising situations). Baldoni was also TERRIBLE at communicating with Blake, often promising her one thing while promising other producers the opposite, and then acting as though the problem was Blake when there is no evidence he ever actually said "no, you cannot do that." In fact on numerous occasions he would tell her she could do something, or even use enthusiastic and encouraging language ("hell yes, please do") all while assuring his producing partners that he was trying to rein her in. It's very hard for me to believe a narrative that Blake somehow plotted all of this from the start when there are texts and emails of her asking politely for certain things (to make a pass at rewriting a scene, to see dailies, etc.) and Baldoni never saying no. And when someone else would tell her no (never Baldoni, he clearly was incapable of setting a boundary with her, which is on him, not her) she would acquiesce. As when she was told she couldn't see dailies. People seem upset and angry that she was persistent in seeking the influence she wanted to have over the production, or aggressive in her contract negotiations. I have no idea why this would offend people. It's a business, she's using the leverage she has to get the best deal for herself. This is what everyone in the business does. It's also what Baldoni and Heath do. Baldoni has a different style, and frankly one I find way more deceptive than what Lively does. He clearly relies on trying to get the other side to like him, personally, sometimes leaning on telling sob stories about himself to induce sympathy, sometimes just telling the other person exactly what he thinks they want to hear in people pleasing mode (but with the ulterior motive of wanting something specific from them). He did this with Blake but he also did this with Colleen Hoover, promising her a bunch of stuff he probably should not have promised in order to get the rights to the movie (agreeing to star in the movie even though he originally didn't want to, agreeing to give her a lot of veto power over aspects of the script and characters, etc.). It is inevitable that Baldoni gets himself into situations where people are angry with him because he over promises and under delivers, over and over again. He compulsively agrees with people but lacks much courage of conviction, and essentially tries to get what he wants by being pleasing and weasely. Give me Blake's straightforward, if sometimes pushy and demanding, asks any day of the week. She's not manipulative. She's literally like "can I do this? I would like to do XYZ, is that okay?" And sure, she'll have her team apply pressure if she thinks it will help, but she will also accept a no when she gets one. Note that when she got angry with him over the rooftop scene, it wasn't because they didn't want to use the version she sent him. It's because he was wishy washy and indirect about it, talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling her how great it was but then making no commitments. She read this as a condescending pat on the head because it was. I will say that both Lively and Baldoni made mistakes in their communication because they were both trying to preserve their character chemistry, and I'm sympathetic to both of them about that. BUT I also view that as the result of Wayfarer's boneheaded choice to have Baldoni direct and star. This was stupid and I think they knew that before they made the choice -- Baldoni was originally not set to direct and had even said publicly that he though a woman should direct it because of the content matter, only to then reneg on this later even as he was also promising Hoover he would play the Ryle role. Another example of Wayfarer being messy and dysfunctional in ways that had serious consequences for the production, but then later trying to blame Lively for the problems it caused. Baldoni had no business directing this movie and they knew it, but they had him do it anyway. Huge mistake. |
Anonymous
I am a Blake supporter who does not care about the PO at all and actually asked on a previous page for this argument to be over because I think it's dull and old news. I'd happily discuss the Wallace affidavit and in fact I have posted about it multiple times, but it gets buried by the back and forth about the PO, which Baldoni supporters also insist in engaging on even though, again, it is a boring, pointless discussion. |
Anonymous
|
Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.
|
Anonymous
Just to be clear: The PR firms and Lively wanted a category of AEO for non-relevant-to-the-case PR materials, and they got that. Lively wanted a category of AEO for medical records, and she got that. Lively wanted a category of AEO for security information, and she got that. Lively wanted other personal information from parties and third parties to be AEO, and the judge didn't grant everything she asked for, but granted SOME. Freedman wanted none of this -- he wanted no pre-agreed AEO category and said in his response motion: "Lively’s Proposed Protective Order, or any protective order permitting “Attorney’s Eyes Only” (“AEO”) designation, is not warranted." This was right after he spent a paragraph in his motion of the Reynolds/Lively SNL appearance. Freedman wanted no pre-agreed AEO categories. He wanted to argue over every document in a meet and confer. The final result of the PO is such a far, far stretch away from what Freedman wanted that it cannot be seen as anything but a loss for Freedman to an objective person. Lively didn't get everything she asked for as pre-designatable AEO, no, but she got a huge amount of it, and getting the pre-designateable category itself was the huge win for her here. Another person looked at the POs and said Lively got 90% of what she wanted. Not having to run to Freedman and ask "pretty please can we keep this private" is an ENORMOUS win for her team. That is so obvious to me, but you can't seem to see it somehow. Strange. |
Anonymous
Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:
SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it. |
Anonymous
Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled): "Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow." Bush. League. |