Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“That hurt my feelings.”
“I’m sorry.”

This tells us nothing of “guilt.” Humans are taught to respond to subjective statements about feelings with an apology for the other person’s experience.

“You backed into my car.”
“I’m sorry; I didn’t see you there.”
That’s more an admission of guilt because it’s about a factual thing that happened, and we have clear rules about who’s at fault in these situations.

These two things are not the same.

While I agree, I think Baldoni wants it both ways. He did apologize a lot. Some of the stuff he apologized for, I think merited an apology. Asking the trainer for Blake's weight very much so -- that was, at best, a super weird and invasive thing to do. The "sexy" comment is trickier, and could very much have been miscommunication, but when you phrase things badly or use the wrong tone, that's something you should be accountable for. But other places he was apologizing when he should have been firmly setting boundaries -- saying sorry they might not use the scene she wrote, or sorry she couldn't see the dailies, when actually what he meant was "no". And was in strong position to say no, as the director and with the backing if the studio. Instead he'd apologize.

And now he wants to portray it all as just apologies to placate a strong willed or pushy person. But that's not accurate. Baldoni has always used apologies as a weapon against criticism. His entire make feminist schtick us premises in him saying "I'm so sorry I screwed up in the past, now I get it." Blake didn't force him to apologize. Apologies are his whole thing. It's just that he's used to it working and it didn't with Blake, who saw through it.

You are being really disingenuous here. He did not have the power to push back on Blake. Blake and Ryan are deeply in bed with Sony, and at every turn, Sony would send him threatening emails like you better play ball. Wayfarer is a fairly small independent production company and they were heavily dependent on Sony. They were dependent on Blake too. She was the biggest name in the film. Of course he wanted to keep her happy. He was put in a really bad position and I think it’s really rich of people to in hindsight say he should’ve pushed back. His hands were really tied.

The bad thing for Blake and Ryan is now they have been exposed with what they do and it’s going to be really hard for Blake to get roles from here on out. Normally an actress coming off of a big box office hit would have her IMDb full. Blake has three upcoming projects, you can’t find information about any of them, they are all in movie purgatory. It’s likely she will be replaced in every one, if any of them actually get made at all.

Sony and Blake took advantage of their positions of power and now it is biting both in their ass. The funniest thing is that Sony decided to align with Ryan and now his power to get films made and get things done in Hollywood is going to be severely compromised.

[Anonymous]

SH has to be severe (what RR admitted he did to Olivia Wilde would actually fit the definition of severe and would only have do be done once) or pervasive. Because JB didn’t do anything severe, like RR, BL has to prove that the environment was full of smaller things that on their own would not be SH but in totality could be argued as SH. That’s why she sat down with her lawyers and came up with a laundry list of tiny subjective infractions to accuse them of.

There’s two problems with this even under the me too laws she wants to invoke. First, she has to have reasonable basis. Are we truly to believe BL has no issue with her daughter saying the things Ryan coached her to say in Deadpool, but that at almost 40 she’s too fragile to watch a birthing video? (One of these things is truly not like the other, and it’s the thing BL and RR did). The second is without malice. By presenting her 17 pt complaint and demands for director/producer like access in quick succession, it looks like she presented this list largely as leverage and proceeded to do a land grab. And those are just the legal problems.

On the PR side, she looks racist and crazy. To invite heath into her trailer, tell him to look at the wall while speaking to her and then accuse him of looking her in the eye is evil work. JB and either the Sony exec or someone else was there (can’t remember who but there was a 3rd person) so there are multiple witnesses that can testify that she told Heath to come in (he didn’t barge in). A normal person would say, I’m not decent, call me or let’s chat later. But instead she orchestrates this demeaning situation and later uses racial tropes to accuse him of SH. Heath seems very professional in every communication I’ve seen, so this is all probably hitting him out of left field.

And then the hypocrisy. Everything she accuses JB of, she’s done. Sexy (well she said it first). Gratuitous kissing/lip sucking (internet sleuths have found a video where she’s doing that to him).

And one thing that’s really telling is BL’s billionaire friend TS is nowhere to be found, while JB’s billionaire friend is standing by him. Steve Sorowitz is an investor in WF and could easily find a way to carve WF and himself out of this lawsuit and throw JB under the bus, but instead he’s sticking by him. If someone’s best friend and godmother to their children won’t defend them, anymous strangers probably should think twice. She’s wrong and destroying me too by trying to take advantage of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SH has to be severe (what RR admitted he did to Olivia Wilde would actually fit the definition of severe and would only have do be done once) or pervasive. Because JB didn’t do anything severe, like RR, BL has to prove that the environment was full of smaller things that on their own would not be SH but in totality could be argued as SH. That’s why she sat down with her lawyers and came up with a laundry list of tiny subjective infractions to accuse them of.

There’s two problems with this even under the me too laws she wants to invoke. First, she has to have reasonable basis. Are we truly to believe BL has no issue with her daughter saying the things Ryan coached her to say in Deadpool, but that at almost 40 she’s too fragile to watch a birthing video? (One of these things is truly not like the other, and it’s the thing BL and RR did). The second is without malice. By presenting her 17 pt complaint and demands for director/producer like access in quick succession, it looks like she presented this list largely as leverage and proceeded to do a land grab. And those are just the legal problems.

On the PR side, she looks racist and crazy. To invite heath into her trailer, tell him to look at the wall while speaking to her and then accuse him of looking her in the eye is evil work. JB and either the Sony exec or someone else was there (can’t remember who but there was a 3rd person) so there are multiple witnesses that can testify that she told Heath to come in (he didn’t barge in). A normal person would say, I’m not decent, call me or let’s chat later. But instead she orchestrates this demeaning situation and later uses racial tropes to accuse him of SH. Heath seems very professional in every communication I’ve seen, so this is all probably hitting him out of left field.

And then the hypocrisy. Everything she accuses JB of, she’s done. Sexy (well she said it first). Gratuitous kissing/lip sucking (internet sleuths have found a video where she’s doing that to him).

And one thing that’s really telling is BL’s billionaire friend TS is nowhere to be found, while JB’s billionaire friend is standing by him. Steve Sorowitz is an investor in WF and could easily find a way to carve WF and himself out of this lawsuit and throw JB under the bus, but instead he’s sticking by him. If someone’s best friend and godmother to their children won’t defend them, anymous strangers probably should think twice. She’s wrong and destroying me too by trying to take advantage of the law.

I keep meaning to bring up the Blake biting his lip video and I keep forgetting. That is wild. It definitely seems like she got with her team and try to just put together a laundry list like you said.

In the trailer you were talking about, her nanny was present, as was the make up artist, and Blake’s assistant. And clearly Heath didn’t barge in to the trailer. It’s very clear from Justin‘s description that Blake was trying to multitask, which I totally understand, but she did not want to be around for the larger producer meeting happening later, so she summoned Heath to her trailer. It was not his idea to come in. And she knew she was going to be doing things like breast-feeding and getting makeup removed from her chest, and then dared accuse him of copping a look. Give me a break.

And you are right, she sounds super fragile and delicate in these instances…. “His wife giving birth looks like p- to me because I’ve never seen p- and I just don’t know what it is!” where she is super bawdy in other instances. She famously made a boob cake for her son’s first birthday thought it was hilarious to tell everyone about it. She is fine joking about BJ’s with Justin and biting his lip unscripted. Aggressively pulling him toward her in whatever scene had her earring that ridiculous camouflage outfit because all florists love to dress in camo. She is absolutely fine talking about how sexy her character is, but when Justin tries to do it, it’s sexual harassment.

They way miscalculated.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, the NYT’s Reply to the MTD dropped Friday (I hadn’t seen it). I don’t do this kind of law but it seems very strong to me. NYT is also pushing hard not to allow aFreedman the right to amend the complaint but instead to dismiss with prejudice, saying this would be their fourth bite at the apple and noting that “Plaintiffs are represented by sophisticated counsel who should have filed a properly differentiated pleading.” Perhaps more importantly, though, NYT argues amendment would be futile, e.g., the actual texts provided in the CRD complaint, which NYT quoted and reported on, show evidence supporting a smear campaign in Baldoni’s and his PR reps own words and therefore preclude any possible finding of actual malice.

Seems like a strong filing to me and i just don’t know whether Baldoni will be permitted to amend or dismissed outright. I don’t think the MTD will be denied in full - chance of that to me is zero.

[Anonymous]

And don’t forget in the old video with Parker Posey, she describes her boobs as being beautiful orbs. No one else bought sexual imagery up until she did. They were talking about costume design.

Blake seems to initiate the playful, flirty sexual banter. And yep, she defuses so in those texts to JB.

[Anonymous]

Oops- she says” you’ve got two nice bumps… no, they’re lovely lady lumps, check it out.”

As she motions towards her boobs when she says this

[Anonymous]

I wonder whether Freedman is going to argue this one? He shouldn’t, but I suspect he won’t be able to restrain his ego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, the NYT’s Reply to the MTD dropped Friday (I hadn’t seen it). I don’t do this kind of law but it seems very strong to me. NYT is also pushing hard not to allow aFreedman the right to amend the complaint but instead to dismiss with prejudice, saying this would be their fourth bite at the apple and noting that “Plaintiffs are represented by sophisticated counsel who should have filed a properly differentiated pleading.” Perhaps more importantly, though, NYT argues amendment would be futile, e.g., the actual texts provided in the CRD complaint, which NYT quoted and reported on, show evidence supporting a smear campaign in Baldoni’s and his PR reps own words and therefore preclude any possible finding of actual malice.

Seems like a strong filing to me and i just don’t know whether Baldoni will be permitted to amend or dismissed outright. I don’t think the MTD will be denied in full - chance of that to me is zero.

+1

They even found caselaw that says the words smear campaign weren't actionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SH has to be severe (what RR admitted he did to Olivia Wilde would actually fit the definition of severe and would only have do be done once) or pervasive. Because JB didn’t do anything severe, like RR, BL has to prove that the environment was full of smaller things that on their own would not be SH but in totality could be argued as SH. That’s why she sat down with her lawyers and came up with a laundry list of tiny subjective infractions to accuse them of.

There’s two problems with this even under the me too laws she wants to invoke. First, she has to have reasonable basis. Are we truly to believe BL has no issue with her daughter saying the things Ryan coached her to say in Deadpool, but that at almost 40 she’s too fragile to watch a birthing video? (One of these things is truly not like the other, and it’s the thing BL and RR did). The second is without malice. By presenting her 17 pt complaint and demands for director/producer like access in quick succession, it looks like she presented this list largely as leverage and proceeded to do a land grab. And those are just the legal problems.

On the PR side, she looks racist and crazy. To invite heath into her trailer, tell him to look at the wall while speaking to her and then accuse him of looking her in the eye is evil work. JB and either the Sony exec or someone else was there (can’t remember who but there was a 3rd person) so there are multiple witnesses that can testify that she told Heath to come in (he didn’t barge in). A normal person would say, I’m not decent, call me or let’s chat later. But instead she orchestrates this demeaning situation and later uses racial tropes to accuse him of SH. Heath seems very professional in every communication I’ve seen, so this is all probably hitting him out of left field.

And then the hypocrisy. Everything she accuses JB of, she’s done. Sexy (well she said it first). Gratuitous kissing/lip sucking (internet sleuths have found a video where she’s doing that to him).

And one thing that’s really telling is BL’s billionaire friend TS is nowhere to be found, while JB’s billionaire friend is standing by him. Steve Sorowitz is an investor in WF and could easily find a way to carve WF and himself out of this lawsuit and throw JB under the bus, but instead he’s sticking by him. If someone’s best friend and godmother to their children won’t defend them, anymous strangers probably should think twice. She’s wrong and destroying me too by trying to take advantage of the law.

While I get your moral opinions and personal judgments of BL/RR here, you are making the classic mistake of thinking those feelings guide the legal situation. You clearly don't understand the legal issues. That thing about RR having his daughter say a vulgar line on set? Completely irrelevant to Lively's case, will not be admitted as evidence, the judge won't care and the jury won't hear it. Also, your read on how the 17-point list will impact the legal case is biased by your own viewpoint. You view Lively as manipulative and therefor conclude the 17-point list was part of an extortion plot. But Baldoni simply has no case on extortion -- he's not even pleading the elements of it. It is going to be dismissed. And the 17-point list is a big liability for him with regards to the SH case. Because while they can say they signed it under duress, it sure looks like a clear enumeration of SH issues on the set and it includes a provision that says they won't retaliate against Lively for raising these issues. That list is very bad for Baldoni, legally. Even if you view it as a manipulation by Lively. That's just not how it works from a legal perspective.

Don't make the mistake of thinking your personal opinions of these events or people will translate into favorable legal conclusions. At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on. But they shouldn't. Baldoni's lawsuits have always been pretty weak and squishy. His best defense will be in contextualizing Blake's allegations to muddy the waters on whether what he and Heath did could be considered SH and retaliation. They'd done this some but people get distracted by his defamation and extortion claims which are very, very weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SH has to be severe (what RR admitted he did to Olivia Wilde would actually fit the definition of severe and would only have do be done once) or pervasive. Because JB didn’t do anything severe, like RR, BL has to prove that the environment was full of smaller things that on their own would not be SH but in totality could be argued as SH. That’s why she sat down with her lawyers and came up with a laundry list of tiny subjective infractions to accuse them of.

There’s two problems with this even under the me too laws she wants to invoke. First, she has to have reasonable basis. Are we truly to believe BL has no issue with her daughter saying the things Ryan coached her to say in Deadpool, but that at almost 40 she’s too fragile to watch a birthing video? (One of these things is truly not like the other, and it’s the thing BL and RR did). The second is without malice. By presenting her 17 pt complaint and demands for director/producer like access in quick succession, it looks like she presented this list largely as leverage and proceeded to do a land grab. And those are just the legal problems.

On the PR side, she looks racist and crazy. To invite heath into her trailer, tell him to look at the wall while speaking to her and then accuse him of looking her in the eye is evil work. JB and either the Sony exec or someone else was there (can’t remember who but there was a 3rd person) so there are multiple witnesses that can testify that she told Heath to come in (he didn’t barge in). A normal person would say, I’m not decent, call me or let’s chat later. But instead she orchestrates this demeaning situation and later uses racial tropes to accuse him of SH. Heath seems very professional in every communication I’ve seen, so this is all probably hitting him out of left field.

And then the hypocrisy. Everything she accuses JB of, she’s done. Sexy (well she said it first). Gratuitous kissing/lip sucking (internet sleuths have found a video where she’s doing that to him).

And one thing that’s really telling is BL’s billionaire friend TS is nowhere to be found, while JB’s billionaire friend is standing by him. Steve Sorowitz is an investor in WF and could easily find a way to carve WF and himself out of this lawsuit and throw JB under the bus, but instead he’s sticking by him. If someone’s best friend and godmother to their children won’t defend them, anymous strangers probably should think twice. She’s wrong and destroying me too by trying to take advantage of the law.

While I get your moral opinions and personal judgments of BL/RR here, you are making the classic mistake of thinking those feelings guide the legal situation. You clearly don't understand the legal issues. That thing about RR having his daughter say a vulgar line on set? Completely irrelevant to Lively's case, will not be admitted as evidence, the judge won't care and the jury won't hear it. Also, your read on how the 17-point list will impact the legal case is biased by your own viewpoint. You view Lively as manipulative and therefor conclude the 17-point list was part of an extortion plot. But Baldoni simply has no case on extortion -- he's not even pleading the elements of it. It is going to be dismissed. And the 17-point list is a big liability for him with regards to the SH case. Because while they can say they signed it under duress, it sure looks like a clear enumeration of SH issues on the set and it includes a provision that says they won't retaliate against Lively for raising these issues. That list is very bad for Baldoni, legally. Even if you view it as a manipulation by Lively. That's just not how it works from a legal perspective.

Don't make the mistake of thinking your personal opinions of these events or people will translate into favorable legal conclusions. At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on. But they shouldn't. Baldoni's lawsuits have always been pretty weak and squishy. His best defense will be in contextualizing Blake's allegations to muddy the waters on whether what he and Heath did could be considered SH and retaliation. They'd done this some but people get distracted by his defamation and extortion claims which are very, very weak.

🔥 🔥 🔥

[Anonymous]

At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on.

The new theory making the rounds is the judge has a conflict of interest because his brother, Doug Liman, directed an ad in which Lively appeared. I can't find a source so I don't have much information. I heard it on TikTok and when I google it, I just get links to random reddit and instagram posts which do not link to primary sources. It's apparently a 2008 political ad. I have no reason to doubt the ad exists but I don't think it's a conflict. I just wonder if that seed has been planted to explain away any MTDs that are granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SH has to be severe (what RR admitted he did to Olivia Wilde would actually fit the definition of severe and would only have do be done once) or pervasive. Because JB didn’t do anything severe, like RR, BL has to prove that the environment was full of smaller things that on their own would not be SH but in totality could be argued as SH. That’s why she sat down with her lawyers and came up with a laundry list of tiny subjective infractions to accuse them of.

There’s two problems with this even under the me too laws she wants to invoke. First, she has to have reasonable basis. Are we truly to believe BL has no issue with her daughter saying the things Ryan coached her to say in Deadpool, but that at almost 40 she’s too fragile to watch a birthing video? (One of these things is truly not like the other, and it’s the thing BL and RR did). The second is without malice. By presenting her 17 pt complaint and demands for director/producer like access in quick succession, it looks like she presented this list largely as leverage and proceeded to do a land grab. And those are just the legal problems.

On the PR side, she looks racist and crazy. To invite heath into her trailer, tell him to look at the wall while speaking to her and then accuse him of looking her in the eye is evil work. JB and either the Sony exec or someone else was there (can’t remember who but there was a 3rd person) so there are multiple witnesses that can testify that she told Heath to come in (he didn’t barge in). A normal person would say, I’m not decent, call me or let’s chat later. But instead she orchestrates this demeaning situation and later uses racial tropes to accuse him of SH. Heath seems very professional in every communication I’ve seen, so this is all probably hitting him out of left field.

And then the hypocrisy. Everything she accuses JB of, she’s done. Sexy (well she said it first). Gratuitous kissing/lip sucking (internet sleuths have found a video where she’s doing that to him).

And one thing that’s really telling is BL’s billionaire friend TS is nowhere to be found, while JB’s billionaire friend is standing by him. Steve Sorowitz is an investor in WF and could easily find a way to carve WF and himself out of this lawsuit and throw JB under the bus, but instead he’s sticking by him. If someone’s best friend and godmother to their children won’t defend them, anymous strangers probably should think twice. She’s wrong and destroying me too by trying to take advantage of the law.

While I get your moral opinions and personal judgments of BL/RR here, you are making the classic mistake of thinking those feelings guide the legal situation. You clearly don't understand the legal issues. That thing about RR having his daughter say a vulgar line on set? Completely irrelevant to Lively's case, will not be admitted as evidence, the judge won't care and the jury won't hear it. Also, your read on how the 17-point list will impact the legal case is biased by your own viewpoint. You view Lively as manipulative and therefor conclude the 17-point list was part of an extortion plot. But Baldoni simply has no case on extortion -- he's not even pleading the elements of it. It is going to be dismissed. And the 17-point list is a big liability for him with regards to the SH case. Because while they can say they signed it under duress, it sure looks like a clear enumeration of SH issues on the set and it includes a provision that says they won't retaliate against Lively for raising these issues. That list is very bad for Baldoni, legally. Even if you view it as a manipulation by Lively. That's just not how it works from a legal perspective.

Don't make the mistake of thinking your personal opinions of these events or people will translate into favorable legal conclusions. At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on. But they shouldn't. Baldoni's lawsuits have always been pretty weak and squishy. His best defense will be in contextualizing Blake's allegations to muddy the waters on whether what he and Heath did could be considered SH and retaliation. They'd done this some but people get distracted by his defamation and extortion claims which are very, very weak.

Not the poster you are responding to, but what you are missing here is that there are two things at play. The PR war, and the legal war.

When posters chime in about Blake and Ryan’s actions conflicting with what they are alleging, not everyone is talking in the legal sense. For example, we understand that Taylor Swift ending a friendship with them has no bearing on their legal case. But arguably it will be the biggest hit to their reputation that they’ve ever had to weather. Can you imagine if Taylor gets married later this year and Blake and Ryan aren’t there? Of course it won’t have any bearing on the trial or the jury, but it will be a public relations nightmare that I don’t think they can come back from.

I like when the lawyers come in and argue the legal merits of the case, but that should not be mixed up with the public relations angle. When this is all over, win or lose, they are still going to have to try to win back the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on.

The new theory making the rounds is the judge has a conflict of interest because his brother, Doug Liman, directed an ad in which Lively appeared. I can't find a source so I don't have much information. I heard it on TikTok and when I google it, I just get links to random reddit and instagram posts which do not link to primary sources. It's apparently a 2008 political ad. I have no reason to doubt the ad exists but I don't think it's a conflict. I just wonder if that seed has been planted to explain away any MTDs that are granted.

If people blame the MTDs being granted, in whole or in part, on some perceived bias because Lively was in an ad directed by the judge's brother 20 years, they are dumb. The MTDs are strong because Baldoni's/Wayfarer's claims are weak. And Freedman knows they are weak. They were filed, quickly, as a means to get a bunch of bad PR in front of the press and to shift the narrative against Lively. Which worked. No lawyer worth their salt should be telling you otherwise. These were weak claims, plead poorly, and if any survive, it will because they kind of backed into something actionable.

But that doesn't mean Baldoni will lose the case. The real action has always been on Blake's lawsuit. He has defenses, and the lawsuit will be extremely jury-dependent because it will come down to whether or not a jury believes that Blake reasonably thought she'd been sexually harassed. Also whether Blake can convincingly argue that actions by Baldoni's PR team were retaliation for her bringing those SH claims. Notice I'm not even saying that it will come down to whether she can convince them she actually was sexually harassed. That would be enormously helpful to her but is actually not essential, as long as she can prove she had a good faith reason to believe she'd been SHed when she made her complaints.

It's sometimes painful for me as a lawyer to see people getting super invested in this case and then thinking their personal judgments and opinions will dictate the outcome. It won't. Lively has sued based on employment and harassment law (also some contract claims as they are treating that 17-point list as a contract, since it was a signed agreement, which is a legally sound argument) and her fact pattern backs this up with some pretty damning evidence on the retaliation claim thanks to those texts and the very unfortunate language used by all parties in them. That's the conflict. You can think Lively is annoying, pushy, controlling, manipulative, etc., and you can think Baldoni is a great dude who got played, and it will have no bearing on the outcome of this case if it turns out Lively actually believed she was being harassed and Baldoni et al launched a smear campaign to "bury" her so that she wouldn't be believed if she came forward.

People's judgment is being very clouded by personal feelings and this case will not be about personal feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SH has to be severe (what RR admitted he did to Olivia Wilde would actually fit the definition of severe and would only have do be done once) or pervasive. Because JB didn’t do anything severe, like RR, BL has to prove that the environment was full of smaller things that on their own would not be SH but in totality could be argued as SH. That’s why she sat down with her lawyers and came up with a laundry list of tiny subjective infractions to accuse them of.

There’s two problems with this even under the me too laws she wants to invoke. First, she has to have reasonable basis. Are we truly to believe BL has no issue with her daughter saying the things Ryan coached her to say in Deadpool, but that at almost 40 she’s too fragile to watch a birthing video? (One of these things is truly not like the other, and it’s the thing BL and RR did). The second is without malice. By presenting her 17 pt complaint and demands for director/producer like access in quick succession, it looks like she presented this list largely as leverage and proceeded to do a land grab. And those are just the legal problems.

On the PR side, she looks racist and crazy. To invite heath into her trailer, tell him to look at the wall while speaking to her and then accuse him of looking her in the eye is evil work. JB and either the Sony exec or someone else was there (can’t remember who but there was a 3rd person) so there are multiple witnesses that can testify that she told Heath to come in (he didn’t barge in). A normal person would say, I’m not decent, call me or let’s chat later. But instead she orchestrates this demeaning situation and later uses racial tropes to accuse him of SH. Heath seems very professional in every communication I’ve seen, so this is all probably hitting him out of left field.

And then the hypocrisy. Everything she accuses JB of, she’s done. Sexy (well she said it first). Gratuitous kissing/lip sucking (internet sleuths have found a video where she’s doing that to him).

And one thing that’s really telling is BL’s billionaire friend TS is nowhere to be found, while JB’s billionaire friend is standing by him. Steve Sorowitz is an investor in WF and could easily find a way to carve WF and himself out of this lawsuit and throw JB under the bus, but instead he’s sticking by him. If someone’s best friend and godmother to their children won’t defend them, anymous strangers probably should think twice. She’s wrong and destroying me too by trying to take advantage of the law.

While I get your moral opinions and personal judgments of BL/RR here, you are making the classic mistake of thinking those feelings guide the legal situation. You clearly don't understand the legal issues. That thing about RR having his daughter say a vulgar line on set? Completely irrelevant to Lively's case, will not be admitted as evidence, the judge won't care and the jury won't hear it. Also, your read on how the 17-point list will impact the legal case is biased by your own viewpoint. You view Lively as manipulative and therefor conclude the 17-point list was part of an extortion plot. But Baldoni simply has no case on extortion -- he's not even pleading the elements of it. It is going to be dismissed. And the 17-point list is a big liability for him with regards to the SH case. Because while they can say they signed it under duress, it sure looks like a clear enumeration of SH issues on the set and it includes a provision that says they won't retaliate against Lively for raising these issues. That list is very bad for Baldoni, legally. Even if you view it as a manipulation by Lively. That's just not how it works from a legal perspective.

Don't make the mistake of thinking your personal opinions of these events or people will translate into favorable legal conclusions. At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on. But they shouldn't. Baldoni's lawsuits have always been pretty weak and squishy. His best defense will be in contextualizing Blake's allegations to muddy the waters on whether what he and Heath did could be considered SH and retaliation. They'd done this some but people get distracted by his defamation and extortion claims which are very, very weak.

Not the poster you are responding to, but what you are missing here is that there are two things at play. The PR war, and the legal war.

When posters chime in about Blake and Ryan’s actions conflicting with what they are alleging, not everyone is talking in the legal sense. For example, we understand that Taylor Swift ending a friendship with them has no bearing on their legal case. But arguably it will be the biggest hit to their reputation that they’ve ever had to weather. Can you imagine if Taylor gets married later this year and Blake and Ryan aren’t there? Of course it won’t have any bearing on the trial or the jury, but it will be a public relations nightmare that I don’t think they can come back from.

I like when the lawyers come in and argue the legal merits of the case, but that should not be mixed up with the public relations angle. When this is all over, win or lose, they are still going to have to try to win back the public.

Nope, not missing it. I wasn't addressing the PR angle. I was only responding to the PPs comments about what was going on "legally." People keep thinking that stuff that is relevant to the PR angle (like this thing about RR having his kid use vulgarity on Deadpool) has legal implications. Most of it doesn't. It might impact your opinion of the people involved, but it is not going to change the course of the legal case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the moment, Lively has the stronger legal case. I think a lot of people are going to freak out when that becomes very obvious after MTDs are ruled on.

The new theory making the rounds is the judge has a conflict of interest because his brother, Doug Liman, directed an ad in which Lively appeared. I can't find a source so I don't have much information. I heard it on TikTok and when I google it, I just get links to random reddit and instagram posts which do not link to primary sources. It's apparently a 2008 political ad. I have no reason to doubt the ad exists but I don't think it's a conflict. I just wonder if that seed has been planted to explain away any MTDs that are granted.

If people blame the MTDs being granted, in whole or in part, on some perceived bias because Lively was in an ad directed by the judge's brother 20 years, they are dumb. The MTDs are strong because Baldoni's/Wayfarer's claims are weak. And Freedman knows they are weak. They were filed, quickly, as a means to get a bunch of bad PR in front of the press and to shift the narrative against Lively. Which worked. No lawyer worth their salt should be telling you otherwise. These were weak claims, plead poorly, and if any survive, it will because they kind of backed into something actionable.

But that doesn't mean Baldoni will lose the case. The real action has always been on Blake's lawsuit. He has defenses, and the lawsuit will be extremely jury-dependent because it will come down to whether or not a jury believes that Blake reasonably thought she'd been sexually harassed. Also whether Blake can convincingly argue that actions by Baldoni's PR team were retaliation for her bringing those SH claims. Notice I'm not even saying that it will come down to whether she can convince them she actually was sexually harassed. That would be enormously helpful to her but is actually not essential, as long as she can prove she had a good faith reason to believe she'd been SHed when she made her complaints.

It's sometimes painful for me as a lawyer to see people getting super invested in this case and then thinking their personal judgments and opinions will dictate the outcome. It won't. Lively has sued based on employment and harassment law (also some contract claims as they are treating that 17-point list as a contract, since it was a signed agreement, which is a legally sound argument) and her fact pattern backs this up with some pretty damning evidence on the retaliation claim thanks to those texts and the very unfortunate language used by all parties in them. That's the conflict. You can think Lively is annoying, pushy, controlling, manipulative, etc., and you can think Baldoni is a great dude who got played, and it will have no bearing on the outcome of this case if it turns out Lively actually believed she was being harassed and Baldoni et al launched a smear campaign to "bury" her so that she wouldn't be believed if she came forward.

People's judgment is being very clouded by personal feelings and this case will not be about personal feelings.

I disagree. Legal technicalities matter more at this MTD stage, that’s for sure. But I think they have enough to get past MTD. A just trial will be very risky for BL with these facts, even with very restrictive jury instructions. I personally think the lively parties, including the nyt (which is the most likely of the bunch to get their wish) all want to win on MTD or summary judgment for this reason. If it looks like the case will go to trial, I think they’ll end up settling to avoid that.