Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meant to say a “jury” trial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone were acting as if that had legal implications for the case, yeah, I definitely see your point. But the PR angle comes in there because people look at that and think it’s hypocritical and gross.

That’s the problem that Ryan and Blake have caused for themselves. If Blake hadn’t started this whole war with Justin during the marketing, the infamous baby bump interview would not have surfaced. Once influencers saw the interest and the clicks that they got, we now have at least a dozen other problematic Blake interview surfacing because they know that’s going to get hits. But Blake and Ryan didn’t want this look under the hood.

Now we’re getting all of these old interviews coming up, problematic things Ryan said about pass costars, anytime they’re being bawdy or using sexual innuendo, it just makes them look hypocritical to the public.

But yes, I totally agree to that has no legal implications for the case. The challenge here is that in addition to winning the legal case, they have to win back the public and the longer this drags on that’s going to be a lot harder for them.

I honestly can’t remember another celebrity scandal that has consistently been in the headlines and the news every day for months and months. And it truly seems like there’s going to be no end in sight for the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blake brought the kids into it by saying her kids were traumatized. But I guess they’re not traumatized by saying take Wolverine’s you know what out of your mouth 70 to 500 time. And of course Wolverine is Uncle Hugh. I don’t think JB would bring the kids into this b/c unlike BL he has morals, but they could use it to undermine the “source” of the emotional trauma claims.

[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.

We have disagreed on other legal points in the case but this is a pretty excellent and clear-eyed breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s filings. I will also admit that you are probably more experienced in these particular areas of the law than I am.

It’s interesting to me that you may view the MTDs besides NYT’s even more favorably than I do. I had thought that most of those would likely be granted to some extent but with leave to amend; your allusion to a potential freak out reaction suggests you might go even farther than that on at least some of the weaker claims against even the non-NYT parties like defamation and extortion.

[Anonymous]

Litigator here. The only mtd with a chance to get a party out is The NY Times. The judge has already signaled that. Everyone else may get a claim or two dropped but I think the judge will allow another chance for Wayfarer to replead with respect to those parties. A third amended complaint isn’t uncommon at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have disagreed on other legal points in the case but this is a pretty excellent and clear-eyed breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s filings. I will also admit that you are probably more experienced in these particular areas of the law than I am.

It’s interesting to me that you may view the MTDs besides NYT’s even more favorably than I do. I had thought that most of those would likely be granted to some extent but with leave to amend; your allusion to a potential freak out reaction suggests you might go even farther than that on at least some of the weaker claims against even the non-NYT parties like defamation and extortion.

I agree that I am probably more bullish than most on claims being dismissed with prejudice after these MTDs. I think a lot of people think they'll be dismissed without prejudice and that Wayfarer will be given a chance to replead to solve the group pleading issue. Normally I would agree, but after reviewing the MTDs last week, I actually think most claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The reason why is that the MTDs pretty effectively lay out how in most cases, Wayfarer has failed to even plead the elements of the claim. This is especially true of the extortion claims (Wayfarer never identifies what of value that Lively/Reynolds/Sloane supposedly gained, plus if CA law is ruled to control, it's not a valid claim anyway) and the tortious interference claim (Wayfarer doesn't even produce the contract that was supposedly violated due to Reynold's/Lively's actions, nor do they even allege that WME's decision to cease representation violated a contract -- talent agents have broad leeway to drop clients for virtually any reason, including bad PR and conflicts with other clients).

I think given these deficiencies, Liman is very unlikely to give Wayfarer a chance to replead these claims due to the group pleading issue -- they've already had a chance to correct the pleading on these claims and still failed to properly allege a fact pattern that would meet the elements here. Giving them a third chance simply because they ALSO made this glaring group pleading error is not in the spirit of how MTDs are usually handled. The whole point of an MTD is to get rid of claims that parties have brought in bad faith without any real basis to believe they are true. I think that's the case here and that Liman is going to have little tolerance of it.

I do think some of the defamation allegations could survive, but in a more limited way than what they've pled (I think the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane will all be dropped, but that perhaps the claim against Reynolds for the "predator" comments and Lively for her statements to the NYT could survive). However, I also think if those defamation claims survive, they will wind up being stayed pending the outcome of Lively's lawsuit. Because if Lively can win her lawsuit, those defamation claims cease to have any real matter. Conversely, if she loses, it would serve to support the defamation claims. Either way, at the end of the day, this case is going to be about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, not this elaborate allegation of conspiracy by all the defendants to extort and defame Wayfarer. That whole argument reads like a White Lotus fan theory to me. It's not grounded in facts or law, as demonstrated by the pleadings.

[Anonymous]

When is the judge expected to rule on all the MTD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have disagreed on other legal points in the case but this is a pretty excellent and clear-eyed breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s filings. I will also admit that you are probably more experienced in these particular areas of the law than I am.

It’s interesting to me that you may view the MTDs besides NYT’s even more favorably than I do. I had thought that most of those would likely be granted to some extent but with leave to amend; your allusion to a potential freak out reaction suggests you might go even farther than that on at least some of the weaker claims against even the non-NYT parties like defamation and extortion.

I agree that I am probably more bullish than most on claims being dismissed with prejudice after these MTDs. I think a lot of people think they'll be dismissed without prejudice and that Wayfarer will be given a chance to replead to solve the group pleading issue. Normally I would agree, but after reviewing the MTDs last week, I actually think most claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The reason why is that the MTDs pretty effectively lay out how in most cases, Wayfarer has failed to even plead the elements of the claim. This is especially true of the extortion claims (Wayfarer never identifies what of value that Lively/Reynolds/Sloane supposedly gained, plus if CA law is ruled to control, it's not a valid claim anyway) and the tortious interference claim (Wayfarer doesn't even produce the contract that was supposedly violated due to Reynold's/Lively's actions, nor do they even allege that WME's decision to cease representation violated a contract -- talent agents have broad leeway to drop clients for virtually any reason, including bad PR and conflicts with other clients).

I think given these deficiencies, Liman is very unlikely to give Wayfarer a chance to replead these claims due to the group pleading issue -- they've already had a chance to correct the pleading on these claims and still failed to properly allege a fact pattern that would meet the elements here. Giving them a third chance simply because they ALSO made this glaring group pleading error is not in the spirit of how MTDs are usually handled. The whole point of an MTD is to get rid of claims that parties have brought in bad faith without any real basis to believe they are true. I think that's the case here and that Liman is going to have little tolerance of it.

I do think some of the defamation allegations could survive, but in a more limited way than what they've pled (I think the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane will all be dropped, but that perhaps the claim against Reynolds for the "predator" comments and Lively for her statements to the NYT could survive). However, I also think if those defamation claims survive, they will wind up being stayed pending the outcome of Lively's lawsuit. Because if Lively can win her lawsuit, those defamation claims cease to have any real matter. Conversely, if she loses, it would serve to support the defamation claims. Either way, at the end of the day, this case is going to be about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, not this elaborate allegation of conspiracy by all the defendants to extort and defame Wayfarer. That whole argument reads like a White Lotus fan theory to me. It's not grounded in facts or law, as demonstrated by the pleadings.

Thanks for this response. Very interesting and lots to think about here, including the purpose behind MTD rulings and the idea of a stay on any remaining defamation claims while the issue of the truth behind the SH allegations is settled first. Thanks for laying this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have disagreed on other legal points in the case but this is a pretty excellent and clear-eyed breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s filings. I will also admit that you are probably more experienced in these particular areas of the law than I am.

It’s interesting to me that you may view the MTDs besides NYT’s even more favorably than I do. I had thought that most of those would likely be granted to some extent but with leave to amend; your allusion to a potential freak out reaction suggests you might go even farther than that on at least some of the weaker claims against even the non-NYT parties like defamation and extortion.

I agree that I am probably more bullish than most on claims being dismissed with prejudice after these MTDs. I think a lot of people think they'll be dismissed without prejudice and that Wayfarer will be given a chance to replead to solve the group pleading issue. Normally I would agree, but after reviewing the MTDs last week, I actually think most claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The reason why is that the MTDs pretty effectively lay out how in most cases, Wayfarer has failed to even plead the elements of the claim. This is especially true of the extortion claims (Wayfarer never identifies what of value that Lively/Reynolds/Sloane supposedly gained, plus if CA law is ruled to control, it's not a valid claim anyway) and the tortious interference claim (Wayfarer doesn't even produce the contract that was supposedly violated due to Reynold's/Lively's actions, nor do they even allege that WME's decision to cease representation violated a contract -- talent agents have broad leeway to drop clients for virtually any reason, including bad PR and conflicts with other clients).

I think given these deficiencies, Liman is very unlikely to give Wayfarer a chance to replead these claims due to the group pleading issue -- they've already had a chance to correct the pleading on these claims and still failed to properly allege a fact pattern that would meet the elements here. Giving them a third chance simply because they ALSO made this glaring group pleading error is not in the spirit of how MTDs are usually handled. The whole point of an MTD is to get rid of claims that parties have brought in bad faith without any real basis to believe they are true. I think that's the case here and that Liman is going to have little tolerance of it.

I do think some of the defamation allegations could survive, but in a more limited way than what they've pled (I think the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane will all be dropped, but that perhaps the claim against Reynolds for the "predator" comments and Lively for her statements to the NYT could survive). However, I also think if those defamation claims survive, they will wind up being stayed pending the outcome of Lively's lawsuit. Because if Lively can win her lawsuit, those defamation claims cease to have any real matter. Conversely, if she loses, it would serve to support the defamation claims. Either way, at the end of the day, this case is going to be about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, not this elaborate allegation of conspiracy by all the defendants to extort and defame Wayfarer. That whole argument reads like a White Lotus fan theory to me. It's not grounded in facts or law, as demonstrated by the pleadings.

Thanks for this response. Very interesting and lots to think about here, including the purpose behind MTD rulings and the idea of a stay on any remaining defamation claims while the issue of the truth behind the SH allegations is settled first. Thanks for laying this out.

The two of you tag teaming is so obvious, even occurs in website feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is the judge expected to rule on all the MTD?

Anyone?

[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 understand what you mean. People will say "Blake's going down!" and they will be basing that on nothing but their own vitriol toward her. But the jurors will be people with all the same biases we have. Of course, they will be told how to evaluate the case, but their "feelings" will come into play. When I served on a jury, people's feelings about the plaintiff absolutely led to her not getting damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is the judge expected to rule on all the MTD?

The only one that’s even fully briefed now is the MTD. judge Lima’s thought it would likely be before depositions began and seemed to indicate that he did not plan to delay, but I’d think it’s at least a month or two out. I also thought there might be oral argument for at least some of these, extending things out a bit, but maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 understand what you mean. People will say "Blake's going down!" and they will be basing that on nothing but their own vitriol toward her. But the jurors will be people with all the same biases we have. Of course, they will be told how to evaluate the case, but their "feelings" will come into play. When I served on a jury, people's feelings about the plaintiff absolutely led to her not getting damages.

This is America. It is so hard to prove sexual harassment. I really think that cobbling together these instances are going to piss a lot of even pretty progressive people off on the jury, the men who are afraid that if they make one misstep completely unintentionally they are going to be sued for sexual harassment, and the women who have endured far worse than this at work and no one gave a crap.

[Anonymous]

Sorry - only one fully briefed is the NYT’s MTD. None of the rest have Reply briefs yet and several don’t even have Freedman’s Oppositions. Maybe that’s part of why Freedman didn’t even want to try filing his own MTDs — it would be more of an uphill battle since they don’t have anywhere near the same group pleading and other problems and his team really has their hands full right now defending by against these other life-or-death motions (while possibly simultaneously redrafting the amended complaint incorporating facts from their “facts” statement that will likely be struck).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have disagreed on other legal points in the case but this is a pretty excellent and clear-eyed breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s filings. I will also admit that you are probably more experienced in these particular areas of the law than I am.

It’s interesting to me that you may view the MTDs besides NYT’s even more favorably than I do. I had thought that most of those would likely be granted to some extent but with leave to amend; your allusion to a potential freak out reaction suggests you might go even farther than that on at least some of the weaker claims against even the non-NYT parties like defamation and extortion.

I agree that I am probably more bullish than most on claims being dismissed with prejudice after these MTDs. I think a lot of people think they'll be dismissed without prejudice and that Wayfarer will be given a chance to replead to solve the group pleading issue. Normally I would agree, but after reviewing the MTDs last week, I actually think most claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The reason why is that the MTDs pretty effectively lay out how in most cases, Wayfarer has failed to even plead the elements of the claim. This is especially true of the extortion claims (Wayfarer never identifies what of value that Lively/Reynolds/Sloane supposedly gained, plus if CA law is ruled to control, it's not a valid claim anyway) and the tortious interference claim (Wayfarer doesn't even produce the contract that was supposedly violated due to Reynold's/Lively's actions, nor do they even allege that WME's decision to cease representation violated a contract -- talent agents have broad leeway to drop clients for virtually any reason, including bad PR and conflicts with other clients).

I think given these deficiencies, Liman is very unlikely to give Wayfarer a chance to replead these claims due to the group pleading issue -- they've already had a chance to correct the pleading on these claims and still failed to properly allege a fact pattern that would meet the elements here. Giving them a third chance simply because they ALSO made this glaring group pleading error is not in the spirit of how MTDs are usually handled. The whole point of an MTD is to get rid of claims that parties have brought in bad faith without any real basis to believe they are true. I think that's the case here and that Liman is going to have little tolerance of it.

I do think some of the defamation allegations could survive, but in a more limited way than what they've pled (I think the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane will all be dropped, but that perhaps the claim against Reynolds for the "predator" comments and Lively for her statements to the NYT could survive). However, I also think if those defamation claims survive, they will wind up being stayed pending the outcome of Lively's lawsuit. Because if Lively can win her lawsuit, those defamation claims cease to have any real matter. Conversely, if she loses, it would serve to support the defamation claims. Either way, at the end of the day, this case is going to be about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, not this elaborate allegation of conspiracy by all the defendants to extort and defame Wayfarer. That whole argument reads like a White Lotus fan theory to me. It's not grounded in facts or law, as demonstrated by the pleadings.

Thanks for this response. Very interesting and lots to think about here, including the purpose behind MTD rulings and the idea of a stay on any remaining defamation claims while the issue of the truth behind the SH allegations is settled first. Thanks for laying this out.

The two of you tag teaming is so obvious, even occurs in website feedback.

Yep. They’ve been tag teaming for a while now. Glad someone else picked up on it.