Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman actually made a statement that he wasn't filing any MTDs because he didn't want to give the Lively Parties a roadmap of the arguments needed to amend their complaint. While I think the main reason is that he doesn't have good grounds to dismiss (because Lively's case hinges on factual determinations, not because I think she's right), that tracked with me because it feels he's projecting what he's doing. The FAC is a mess and his responses generally boiled down to "well we can just amend it/we're getting more information."

In other words, you think the Lively parties are giving Freedman a roadmap to how to amend his complaint by filing these MTDs? The thing is I do not think Freedman will be given leave to amend on some of these claims because it will be considered futile. He should lose a bunch of these.

Pretty much. The various MTDs are laying out the elements that haven't been met and other deficiencies and inconsistencies. For example in this Reynolds response, he notes the defamatory call from Reynolds to Greenberg wasn't even in the complaint at all but the timeline, so now Freedman can just edit it into the second amended complaint, if granted leave, and incorporate all the arguments made about actual malice, damages, etc. I guess Freedman believes this is a brilliant strategy. I'm not so sure.

I think a lot will get dismissed (bearing in mind Wayfarer is generally claiming every Wayfarer party against every Lively party, even in cases where there's zero connection, eg, there's no allegation Reynolds defamed the PR reps). The only one I think has a chance to get dismissed totally is NYT. I think the Sloane/Vision PR "sexual assault" claim and the Reynolds "sexual predator"/interference with a contract claims will survive, and many of the claims against Lively, but everything should be narrowed down a lot. I am curious if the judge will buy into the theory that it was all a conspiracy so Wayfarer can claim against all Lively parties, and how he'll rule on extortion (I lean towards dismissing all the extortion claims entirely).

Agree, almost nothing will be dismissed, with the exception of the NY Times. The MTF standard favors plaintiffs to the extreme and leave to replead is freely given. Not many of the folks repeatedly giving their legal opinion are actually litigators and it shows.

I agree. I’m not a lawyer but some of the recent posts have been so off base that I’ve chosen not to engage. Attacking BF and other irrelevant arguments and overlooking Ryan’s constant gas lighting (his court submissions are lacking in basic professionalism and are by far the worst of all parties, both in terms of writing and legal arguments). If these people commenting are lawyers, they’re really bad lawyers. As you said, very little will be dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman actually made a statement that he wasn't filing any MTDs because he didn't want to give the Lively Parties a roadmap of the arguments needed to amend their complaint. While I think the main reason is that he doesn't have good grounds to dismiss (because Lively's case hinges on factual determinations, not because I think she's right), that tracked with me because it feels he's projecting what he's doing. The FAC is a mess and his responses generally boiled down to "well we can just amend it/we're getting more information."

In other words, you think the Lively parties are giving Freedman a roadmap to how to amend his complaint by filing these MTDs? The thing is I do not think Freedman will be given leave to amend on some of these claims because it will be considered futile. He should lose a bunch of these.

Pretty much. The various MTDs are laying out the elements that haven't been met and other deficiencies and inconsistencies. For example in this Reynolds response, he notes the defamatory call from Reynolds to Greenberg wasn't even in the complaint at all but the timeline, so now Freedman can just edit it into the second amended complaint, if granted leave, and incorporate all the arguments made about actual malice, damages, etc. I guess Freedman believes this is a brilliant strategy. I'm not so sure.

I think a lot will get dismissed (bearing in mind Wayfarer is generally claiming every Wayfarer party against every Lively party, even in cases where there's zero connection, eg, there's no allegation Reynolds defamed the PR reps). The only one I think has a chance to get dismissed totally is NYT. I think the Sloane/Vision PR "sexual assault" claim and the Reynolds "sexual predator"/interference with a contract claims will survive, and many of the claims against Lively, but everything should be narrowed down a lot. I am curious if the judge will buy into the theory that it was all a conspiracy so Wayfarer can claim against all Lively parties, and how he'll rule on extortion (I lean towards dismissing all the extortion claims entirely).

Agree, almost nothing will be dismissed, with the exception of the NY Times. The MTF standard favors plaintiffs to the extreme and leave to replead is freely given. Not many of the folks repeatedly giving their legal opinion are actually litigators and it shows.

DP, but even though you are saying "Agree" above you are not at all agreeing with what PP is saying. PP said (and I agree) that while almost nothing will get dismissed in full EXCEPT maybe the NYT claims, that a significant amount of other detritus will be dismissed from Freedman's complaint because, for example, he hasn't pled that Reynolds' alleged defamation of Baldoni in any defamed the PR reps. Those claims, as Gottlieb pointed out in the reply, may rightfully dismissed with prejudice given the futility of allowing Freedman to amend them at this stage of the game and Liman isn't going to want to perform this entire exercise anew on any new complaint that Freedman does pull out of his a$$ in two months. There may be some claims that Liman gives Freeman a shot at amending, but the Motions to Dismiss identify a lot of weak sauce Freedman added to his $400M pot of hopes and dreams. And even if he does allow repleading of certain claims, it's not really clear that Freedman would actually be able to allege what's needed to keep the claim alive.

I am not familiar with the MTF standard, is that something only litigators know lol - is it the standard applied in a Motion to Eff with the judge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I listened to that old beyond the blinds podcast about Blake because someone on another thread here had mentioned it. It’s from well before it ends with us, and wow is it unflattering.

Apparently she had a reputation as a “casting couch girl.” Also, Harrison ford apparently treated her really badly on the set of the age of Adeline, saying “this is why you don’t hire people who can’t act just because of who they married”. Blake was taking acting lessons and everything but couldn’t meet his expectations.

There’s lots of other stories, so you’ll have to listen yourself if interested, but it did raise two things for me. First, given all of her on set romances, including with married men and including while she was married, it does make me wonder about the fan theory that she had a thing for Justin and was a bit insulted when he didn’t reciprocate. The other thing I thought was “why Justin”? Out of all of these men who treated her really badly like Harrison Ford, what made Justin the one she wanted to go after. Almost makes me think she’s taking out her past trauma on him. Like she said “no more” as she alleges in her 30 point complaint but really she was thinking about all the men who had disrespected her in the past so by the time she crossed paths with Justin any little thing could set her off.

Thanks for the recommendation of the podcast. It sounds really interesting. Harrison Ford is a curmudgeon, but he is a well-respected actor. I did not even know he was in a movie with Blake Lively. Will be interested to hear about that.

What podcast episode number is it?

It’s Dec 2021 and it’s called xoxo, Blake lively

I listened to it today, and it was fascinating. The hosts really flesh out how the dynamics of the Reynolds and Lively relationship by exploring the blinds. Apparently Harrison Ford said that her acting was example of why sitcom girls should not do movies.

Reynolds sounds like a controlling asshat, but that's probably nor news to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe Ryan and Blake threw their careers away to push this hoax scheme. This is so evil and twisted. And it begs the question, is it their first time trying to destroy someone's life for sport? Probably not, right?

+1
It seems really unhinged.
And even if you can’t stand smarmy Freedman and you think Justin to be a phony douche, it still makes no sense why they are continuing to keep it all going when they could easily settle and put this whole era behind them. (See what I did there, TS?)
In all honesty it makes no sense for them to keep this up. There in zero gain at this point because the longer this goes on, this will be all they are known for.
The WME guy who went to bat for them is already out!
Who else will be willing to be destroyed in their wake? They’re done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe Ryan and Blake threw their careers away to push this hoax scheme. This is so evil and twisted. And it begs the question, is it their first time trying to destroy someone's life for sport? Probably not, right?

+1
It seems really unhinged.
And even if you can’t stand smarmy Freedman and you think Justin to be a phony douche, it still makes no sense why they are continuing to keep it all going when they could easily settle and put this whole era behind them. (See what I did there, TS?)
In all honesty it makes no sense for them to keep this up. There in zero gain at this point because the longer this goes on, this will be all they are known for.
The WME guy who went to bat for them is already out!
Who else will be willing to be destroyed in their wake? They’re done.

Some think she’s positioning for a settlement and will say she’s doing it for her family’s sake. They’re currently hiding out at their farm in upstate ny, where paparazzi just happened to snap a shot of Blake looking very sad (even though the house is on six acres and surrounded by trees…). She also posted an eeyore quote on Instagram saying it never hurts to keep looking for sunshine. The tabloids say she’s struggling, regretting the lawsuit, feels like everything she does is being criticized and she just wants to rebuild relationships with people she cares about. All of this is supposed to make us feel sad for her of course.

Meanwhile, discovery is well underway and BF has already responded to 500 of their 1600 requests. I’m guessing they haven’t found the smoking gun they’re looking for, unless of course discovery included a mirror, so they’re looking for a way out.

[Anonymous]

Settle for what? All 400 million Baldoni is requesting?

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, discovery is well underway and BF has already responded to 500 of their 1600 requests. I’m guessing they haven’t found the smoking gun they’re looking for, unless of course discovery included a mirror, so they’re looking for a way out.

Where was that reported? Any idea of what was produced?

[Anonymous]

Why on earth would they settle right before all these MTDs are going to be decided? That's just bananas and not realistic in the slightest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, discovery is well underway and BF has already responded to 500 of their 1600 requests. I’m guessing they haven’t found the smoking gun they’re looking for, unless of course discovery included a mirror, so they’re looking for a way out.

Where was that reported? Any idea of what was produced?

BF wrote a letter to the court asking for an extension from April 14 to May 14. In the letter he said Lively’s lawyers were being unreasonable and unprofessional because they’d made 1600 requests (I think wayfarer made 300) and he asked for a mutual extension for all parties but they said no. So now he’s having to ask the judge. I’m going off memory so some could be misstated, but that’s the gist. In it he said they’d responded to 500 so far. It’s a court doc. I follow a YouTuber who reads the new filings as they come in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would they settle right before all these MTDs are going to be decided? That's just bananas and not realistic in the slightest.

No one said they’re settling today, just that they’re setting the stage for a settlement. How long before they actually reach one is anybody’s guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, discovery is well underway and BF has already responded to 500 of their 1600 requests. I’m guessing they haven’t found the smoking gun they’re looking for, unless of course discovery included a mirror, so they’re looking for a way out.

Where was that reported? Any idea of what was produced?

BF wrote a letter to the court asking for an extension from April 14 to May 14. In the letter he said Lively’s lawyers were being unreasonable and unprofessional because they’d made 1600 requests (I think wayfarer made 300) and he asked for a mutual extension for all parties but they said no. So now he’s having to ask the judge. I’m going off memory so some could be misstated, but that’s the gist. In it he said they’d responded to 500 so far. It’s a court doc. I follow a YouTuber who reads the new filings as they come in.

Thanks. Hopefully some stuff gets leaked, protective order or not, lol.

[Anonymous]

In his response to Blake, Jed Wallace used Blake’s own exhibit against her. Apparently she included a chart showing sentiment began to turn negative in July, before he was hired lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would they settle right before all these MTDs are going to be decided? That's just bananas and not realistic in the slightest.

No one said they’re settling today, just that they’re setting the stage for a settlement. How long before they actually reach one is anybody’s guess.

They aren't settling anytime soon. Blake isn't going to publicly apologized and will want to leave things vauge. Baldoni does not and frankly can't afford it with a target on his back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe Ryan and Blake threw their careers away to push this hoax scheme. This is so evil and twisted. And it begs the question, is it their first time trying to destroy someone's life for sport? Probably not, right?

+1
It seems really unhinged.
And even if you can’t stand smarmy Freedman and you think Justin to be a phony douche, it still makes no sense why they are continuing to keep it all going when they could easily settle and put this whole era behind them. (See what I did there, TS?)
In all honesty it makes no sense for them to keep this up. There in zero gain at this point because the longer this goes on, this will be all they are known for.
The WME guy who went to bat for them is already out!
Who else will be willing to be destroyed in their wake? They’re done.

There are multiple plaintiffs who have lost business and all who have taken a credibility. Settling would not be easy. Outside of the financial aspect, Ryan and Blake are not apologizing as i said above. Do people really think the same man who joked about the situation on snl will turn around and say "oops our bad!" If they settle they are not going to take responsibility and will twist which doesn't help Justin and the others.

[Anonymous]

Just watched a video of an influencer who had been tracking Isabella, the actress who played Young Lily‘s Instagram. She had taken a bunch of pictures. Isabella had three carousels on her Instagram with a bunch of pictures of her and Blake during the weeks they launched the film. All those have been wiped out. Looks like she is trying to distance herself.