Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

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.

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.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s definitely in the timeline in multiple places with email evidence backing it up.

They mention it in the timeline but (1) there is way less email evidence than you think, because you are remembering the narrative description, not actual email evidence, and (2) even though they mention it, it is not part of their claims against Lively. Again, the opposite -- they rely on the terms of the contract to allege Lively was trying to break it.

As I just said, Lively would be bound by the contract once she started filming even if it was not signed, based on a theory of promissory estoppel as well as likely how a contact is defined in the relevant jurisdiction. This is why handshake deals can be enforceable. But they had way more than a handshake deal -- Wayfarer had spent a bunch of money based on Lively's commitment to the production. Had she tried to backout at Amy point once production started, they could have sued her for breach regardless of whether she signed the contract.

It's a red herring.

1. I literally just read it yesterday, so I’m not misremembering.
2. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Would they have had a basis to sue her, perhaps, but litigation takes years, lots of money had already been spent, Young Lily’s likeness was cast around BL and those scenes had been shot, and the big whopper is that she was holding SH over their heads as leverage.

There was nothing business as usual about her behavior. I feel like you’re trying to strip out all of the context and make a technical argument, but that’s just not real life. This is exactly why this case has to go to a jury. There are many many questions of fact, not just of law.

If true, why don't they argue that Lively used her unsigned contract as part of the alleged extortion. They don't. Go look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

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.

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.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s definitely in the timeline in multiple places with email evidence backing it up.

They mention it in the timeline but (1) there is way less email evidence than you think, because you are remembering the narrative description, not actual email evidence, and (2) even though they mention it, it is not part of their claims against Lively. Again, the opposite -- they rely on the terms of the contract to allege Lively was trying to break it.

As I just said, Lively would be bound by the contract once she started filming even if it was not signed, based on a theory of promissory estoppel as well as likely how a contact is defined in the relevant jurisdiction. This is why handshake deals can be enforceable. But they had way more than a handshake deal -- Wayfarer had spent a bunch of money based on Lively's commitment to the production. Had she tried to backout at Amy point once production started, they could have sued her for breach regardless of whether she signed the contract.

It's a red herring.

1. I literally just read it yesterday, so I’m not misremembering.
2. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Would they have had a basis to sue her, perhaps, but litigation takes years, lots of money had already been spent, Young Lily’s likeness was cast around BL and those scenes had been shot, and the big whopper is that she was holding SH over their heads as leverage.

There was nothing business as usual about her behavior. I feel like you’re trying to strip out all of the context and make a technical argument, but that’s just not real life. This is exactly why this case has to go to a jury. There are many many questions of fact, not just of law.

If true, why don't they argue that Lively used her unsigned contract as part of the alleged extortion. They don't. Go look.

B/c it’s literally not the point of their lawsuit. The main issue is she used the supposed SH as her leverage. The contract, my tears richochet, refusal to market the film were just icing on the cake in her pattern of abuse, but the focus is that the SH claims were not made in good faith and were weaponized. They can’t sue her for weaponizing my tears richochet. You’re the one who keeps talking about red herrings, but you’ve followed one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

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.

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.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s my understanding that she signed the certificate of engagement, but not the actual contract. That is what allowed her to keep threatening to walk away from the movie. I don’t get why that is a fan theory, if in fact, she was legally obligated to perform the film without paying back her salary or something, then why would they be in this mess?

The Certificate of Engagement is the contract. Your understanding is incorrect.

Even without a signed C&E, the production would be protected by contact law once Lively started filming, because if you start to perform a contract and the other side acts on that performance, you are generally bound regardless of signing.

But go look at the complaint and timeline if you want. They complain about Lively not signing the contract but don't allege any claims based on it. They do this with a bunch of their facts -- it's in there to make Lively look bad but isn't related a cause of action. A lot of them will be thrown out as irrelevant by the judge. It was a PR move and it worked because now a bunch of JB stans will sit around arguing the theory that Lively was refusing to sign her contract to gain control of the production, even though Baldoni doesn't even allege this.

Absolutely not.. The certificate of engagement is not the contract. It is the first step in the contract process that a lot of actors sign. Blake lively an LLC she set up which many actors do, and she signed that certificate of engagement that basically ties her to the film. It is the first step in negotiations, but it is not the employment contract.

The next step is to actually sign the employment contract, which she did not do. How you’ve gotten this far without knowing that really escapes me. In Baldoni’s timeline, they published many emails throughout the course of filming, begging her to sign the actual employment contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

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.

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.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense because Wayfarer has decided to only provide the handful of emails that they think back up their story that Lively unreasonably delayed the rider. And these emails aren't even that supportive -- they don't even send the rider until the first day of filming and the attorney is apologizing for the "rush job" and requesting that it be signed and returned overnight even though SAG guidelines require more time and specify that riders should not be signed under duress.

Why did it take them so long to get Lively a rider? Why was it a "rush job"? Why did Lively's team have to request confirmation from the IC that they had reviewed it and signed off (this should have been provided when submitted)? And then we have no other emails to show negotiations over the rider, including no emails showing they were "begging" her for it. But we do know that within the first few days of filming, Lively was already concerned about Baldoni's behavior on set during kissing scenes (not designated as "intimate" scenes in the script and thus not covered by the nudity rider), so we don't know to what degree Lively's experience on set with Baldoni may have slowed her willingness to sign off on the nudity rider, having discovered that Baldoni's behavior regarding even mild on-screen intimacy left a lot to be desired. Discovery should shed some light on this.

One thing we do have is Lively telling a fellow actress, during the hiatus, that she dreaded returning to set and having to work with Baldoni again, and that she was still schedule to film all of her intimate scenes with him, as they'd been delayed due to pushing back those Vegas scenes and then the strike. Why would an actress who was in the middle of executing a long-planned heist of a movie be so stressed about returning to set that she (1) tells another actress she doesn't want to do it, and (2) insists on a bunch of protections being put into place before she agrees, none of which give her greater control over the movie but all of which ensure that consent will be observed and that Baldoni will not have opportunities to pressure her or force additional nudity or intimacy onto her?

Wayfarer has released lots of evidence that doesn’t paint them in the best light (the voice note is cringe, for example) but they did this precisely to establish credibility. They’re putting it all out there—good, bad, ugly. I think it’s pretty baseless to accuse them of cherry picking emails. In fact BL and RR have accused them of oversharing and sought to strike their exhibit and get their website taken down (unsuccessfully). If BL and RR had receipts to contradict JB’s narrative, they would’ve dropped them by now.

Yes, if you simply take all the words coming out of Bryan Freedman's mouth at face value, this is the case.

I think they info dumped before the judge could tell them to stop to get out a bunch of embarrassing (but not legally actionable) stuff about Ryan and Blake, but included a few less than favorable details so that Freedman could say "were being fully transparent." It's clever PR, and Freedman is very smart at the PR aspect of litigation, but it's intentionally misleading.

A lot of you argue constantly that Baldoni's pleadings show things THEY DON'T SHOW. But go ahead and point me to all the emails in Baldoni's pleadings that show Lively was using her unsigned contract to get control of the movie. Happy to admit I'm wrong if I missed it.

They won when they redacted every name but “accidentally” mentioned Taylor.

It was a genius move. It isolated them from her and that speculation has done more damage to Blake’s image than anything.

The most realistic narrative I’ve heard is that Taylor still considers her a friend, but feels really hurt and used by her. And absolutely does not want to be anywhere near a PR crisis at this stage in her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Probably a question for the jury, which is why they’ll survive MTD. I think again b/c she presented her 17pt plan and other unrelated demands for producer like privileges near simultaneously, the threat was strongly implied and puts her allegations in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

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.

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.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s my understanding that she signed the certificate of engagement, but not the actual contract. That is what allowed her to keep threatening to walk away from the movie. I don’t get why that is a fan theory, if in fact, she was legally obligated to perform the film without paying back her salary or something, then why would they be in this mess?

The Certificate of Engagement is the contract. Your understanding is incorrect.

Even without a signed C&E, the production would be protected by contact law once Lively started filming, because if you start to perform a contract and the other side acts on that performance, you are generally bound regardless of signing.

But go look at the complaint and timeline if you want. They complain about Lively not signing the contract but don't allege any claims based on it. They do this with a bunch of their facts -- it's in there to make Lively look bad but isn't related a cause of action. A lot of them will be thrown out as irrelevant by the judge. It was a PR move and it worked because now a bunch of JB stans will sit around arguing the theory that Lively was refusing to sign her contract to gain control of the production, even though Baldoni doesn't even allege this.

Absolutely not.. The certificate of engagement is not the contract. It is the first step in the contract process that a lot of actors sign. Blake lively an LLC she set up which many actors do, and she signed that certificate of engagement that basically ties her to the film. It is the first step in negotiations, but it is not the employment contract.

The next step is to actually sign the employment contract, which she did not do. How you’ve gotten this far without knowing that really escapes me. In Baldoni’s timeline, they published many emails throughout the course of filming, begging her to sign the actual employment contract.

No. The thing they wanted her to sign was the Certificate of Engagement. From their timeline:

Below is an email from It Ends With Us production attorney notifying Lively’s lawyer that, despite Lively’s unavailability, production had not shut down and further inquired about the status of the still unsigned Certificate of Engagement (the preliminary contract required before commencing work).

And from their complaint:

Their focus then shifted to ensuring Lively’s fee was deposited in escrow, and they became fixated on that, despite Wayfarer’s repeated requests for Lively to sign the customary Certificate of Engagement20 first.

When working with an actor who may take time to sign the main actor agreement, it is customary to send a certificate of engagement to protect the copyright of the film. Wayfarer negotiated the terms of said certificate of engagement but, though it was approved by Lively’s counsel, never received a signed copy.

But it's cute how you think I'm stupid for using the contract terms correctly as described in their pleadings. Go on assuming you understand this case without consulting the documents, understanding the law, or having an accurate understanding of the fact pattern. Just vibes. That's what Freedman is hoping for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

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.

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.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s my understanding that she signed the certificate of engagement, but not the actual contract. That is what allowed her to keep threatening to walk away from the movie. I don’t get why that is a fan theory, if in fact, she was legally obligated to perform the film without paying back her salary or something, then why would they be in this mess?

The Certificate of Engagement is the contract. Your understanding is incorrect.

Even without a signed C&E, the production would be protected by contact law once Lively started filming, because if you start to perform a contract and the other side acts on that performance, you are generally bound regardless of signing.

But go look at the complaint and timeline if you want. They complain about Lively not signing the contract but don't allege any claims based on it. They do this with a bunch of their facts -- it's in there to make Lively look bad but isn't related a cause of action. A lot of them will be thrown out as irrelevant by the judge. It was a PR move and it worked because now a bunch of JB stans will sit around arguing the theory that Lively was refusing to sign her contract to gain control of the production, even though Baldoni doesn't even allege this.

Absolutely not.. The certificate of engagement is not the contract. It is the first step in the contract process that a lot of actors sign. Blake lively an LLC she set up which many actors do, and she signed that certificate of engagement that basically ties her to the film. It is the first step in negotiations, but it is not the employment contract.

The next step is to actually sign the employment contract, which she did not do. How you’ve gotten this far without knowing that really escapes me. In Baldoni’s timeline, they published many emails throughout the course of filming, begging her to sign the actual employment contract.

No. The thing they wanted her to sign was the Certificate of Engagement. From their timeline:

Below is an email from It Ends With Us production attorney notifying Lively’s lawyer that, despite Lively’s unavailability, production had not shut down and further inquired about the status of the still unsigned Certificate of Engagement (the preliminary contract required before commencing work).

And from their complaint:

Their focus then shifted to ensuring Lively’s fee was deposited in escrow, and they became fixated on that, despite Wayfarer’s repeated requests for Lively to sign the customary Certificate of Engagement20 first.

When working with an actor who may take time to sign the main actor agreement, it is customary to send a certificate of engagement to protect the copyright of the film. Wayfarer negotiated the terms of said certificate of engagement but, though it was approved by Lively’s counsel, never received a signed copy.

But it's cute how you think I'm stupid for using the contract terms correctly as described in their pleadings. Go on assuming you understand this case without consulting the documents, understanding the law, or having an accurate understanding of the fact pattern. Just vibes. That's what Freedman is hoping for.

But it looks like what you were pointing out is even worse. So she never even signed the certificate of engagement? There was a certificate engagement and then there was supposed to be a contract and she signed neither?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

No. There are texts dammit. Blake texted Justin that she wanted Ryan’s company to do the marketing and that they would not charge for it. She said “will keep it in the family.”

That was their arrangement, not Sony. And guess what, she lied and they did charge for it.