Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Their super agent was bragging on a podcast he was helping them blackball an innocent man. The matter is over, all the noise is just pointless posturing until a very, very large check has to be issued to the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this letter people reference above. Technically, it's not Freedman, it's someone else from the lawyer team. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.168.0.pdf

They've asked for more time to respond to the doc requests, yes, and also an extension of time to move to amend their pleadings so that it's based off the court's forthcoming MTD rulings - 21 days later. Lively parties don't want to agree to this because the schedule wasn't originally set up to base leave to amend off MTD rulings, so why should they be allowing Baldoni all this extra time to fix his stupid complaint that he's put no effort into so far when he could be working on that right now? (lol - haven't they already given him that roadmap? so what's his problem?) Fritz (the Baldoni lawyer) also faults the Lively parties etc for not giving a reason to allow the extension besides noting that the original schedule is not targeted off MTD rulings, and cites to an ethical rule requiring courtesy and cooperation at all times, so I can see why Freedman couldn't put his name on this letter.

Interested in seeing whatever the Lively attorneys will say in response. Noting that Fritz said the NYT would agree to the extension of time for filing amendments but specifically lodged that they would oppose any amendment anyway (as will any party, really).

The total number of doc requests, 1600, does seem like a lot when aggregated. But if you consider that it is split between 8 different parties it comes out to 200 RFPs per party, and that's not crazy. Each party does not need to be represented by the same law firm, so if this is too much for Freedman et al to handle they could be getting additional help. Seems like Sarowitz can afford it and it's not like these requests are a surprise to them, since Fritz said they were all served at the same time.

My guess is that Liman will give Fritz a short extension on the doc production deadline but not quite as long as he wants. I think Liman may grant the amendment deadline based off his MTD orders, but I'm not sure. It annoys me that Freedman vaingloriously boasted about how the Lively parties had already given him a roadmap re what he'd have to do to fix his complaint, and yet he makes no effort to do anything with that information and now sits here pleading with the judge for more time. I know, I know, parties are liberally granted leave to amend etc. But much of his complaint is garbage and yet he is sitting on his hands, so I hope Liman splits the baby here, too, somehow.

Your argument is silly. The judge will give them more time for both. This is basic stuff. Lively’s attorneys are being a-holes just to be a-holes, there’s really no reason to oppose something like this. Of course Baldoni’s team wants to wait for the judge’s ruling to do any amendments. It doesn’t make sense otherwise. And since Lively’s team requested 5 times as many interrogatories as baldoni’s, of course they’ll need more time. Lively’s lawyers aren’t doing themselves any favors with the judge. The only thing I can think is they’re not concerned about generating goodwill because they know their MTDs won’t be granted and they’re planning to settle before trial. You see the nyt, which has a better case for dismissal, is behaving much more in accordance with the rules of decorum.

I think you’ve misread Fritz’s letter. I don’t believe Fritz says anywhere how numerous their own ROG/RFPs to Lively etc. have been. Maybe you read the 31 sets of ROGs served on Wayfarer as individual ROGs Wayfarer served? That’s wrong though. But maybe I missed something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to get you guys on the record, you think Judge Liman will not be dismissing any of Freedman's claims with prejudice, but will basically allow him to replead every single claim he has made in his FAC against all of the parties? Except maybe he will possibly grant the NYT MTD. That seems to be what you are saying, but I'm not sure I've got you right.

There is no record here, lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

Exactly zero studio execs would refer to Blake and Ryan as "ten a penny" in Hollywood -- they are worth a ton of money, not just to themselves but also to studios. Ryan in particular. TBH, neither of them make the kind of movies or TV I actually want to watch. I've never seen any Deadpool movies, never saw IEWU. I watched A Simple Favor and it was okay for something to watch while doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen.

But even I can see that they are incredibly marketable and make a lot of people (including Wayfarer) a ton of money. Obviously a lot of media consumers like them well enough to spend a lot more money on their movies.

These insults about Blake and Ryan being stupid and old and uneducated and having ruined their careers all sound like when Donald Trump is mad that someone very popular doesn't like him so he calls them losers even when they objectively are not. It just comes off as very petty wishful thinking.

Yes! I honestly don’t understand why they start spamming the thread with this stuff every page. It’s like they believe that if they say it, it will come true. And it’s so regular — like twice every page almost! Also the constant imperatives to Lively and Reynolds to settle, as though they believe that they are reading this thread lol. It’s just kind of bizarre.

It’s weird that you think they won’t settle. Blake is getting hammered everywhere she goes and she’s become repellent to her own friends who want to distance themselves from this drama. The problem imo is actually that Lively might have a hard time agreeing to terms Baldoni is willing to accept.

I believe that nothing in Blake’s case rises to the level of harassment, and certainly not to the level of “sexual predator”, which is defamatory per se. Ryan Reynolds in particular is going to have a really hard time getting out of this just based on his behavior and the facts of the case.

Blake had a right to feel how she felt, but once wayfarer addressed her concerns, that should’ve been the end of it. The problem is she continued to escalate. Even if there was a smear campaign - and if you believe Wallace’s sworn declaration, there likely wasn’t one - she’s going to have to prove that the smear campaign was retaliation for harassment and not just a defensive move in response to her cutting him out of promos and fueling rumors about him in the press. Blake has a few privileges that may help her avoid liability for her defamation, but it’s not going to be easy, and if she wins in court based on what the public sees as unfair privilege or a technicality, she’ll still lose in the court of public opinion. She has every reason to settle at this point.

DP. I appreciate your measured post which isn't just "Blake and Ryan are horrible and need to settle" (I'm not a fan of theirs, just find those posts/rants tedious). I actually agree with most of what you say except the part about settlement. While she may have some success getting some of Baldoni's claims against her dismissed, she'll have a very hard time winning her SH/retaliation case at trial. I'll wait to see how discovery pans out, but so far, to the extent that there has been any objective documentary evidence on the SH (videos, texts, the OBGYN actor's imdb page) it pretty much supports Baldoni. Basically I think her case is strong on the law, and his is strong on the facts. But I'm keeping an open mind and am interested to see what happens with depositions because she claims there were witnesses to a lot of these events, like the driver who allegedly said she shouldn't be alone with Baldoni anymore. As it stands right now, I think an SH trial would be embarrassing for her.

On the settlement, here's where I'm caught up. I imagine she expected a lot of sympathy for her MeToo story. She would be the victim of SH and Ryan her knight in shining armor, the devoted husband defending her from fat shaming. It's a good narrative, but the problem is a lot of people think she lied (reasonably so, because Baldoni has provided some proof in his defense). If she settles that's basically admitting she lied. I can't see coming back from that. Of course they might sign a paper that says she's not admitting to liability, but that's what everyone will assume. I guess she can try to spin it as they're just so mean to her that she can't take it anymore, but that's a hard sell. So I feel like they're in this now and they have to see it through. I always feel like a lot of people who say she needs to settle (not you specifically) are saying that either because they want to see justice for Baldoni without a drawn out case (fair) or they just dislike her and want her to admit she lied so they can excoriate her (which I get). At least with the case remaining pending, she can still allow the possibility for people to think she's telling the truth, but if she settles, that door is closed.

I am curious what the general public really thinks. People who are very online skew Baldoni. I wonder what the person who is only seeing headlines in legacy media and streaming thinks... I kind of assume they just consider it a he said, she said, and aren't as aware of all the evidence, and probably think both parties did something bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to get you guys on the record, you think Judge Liman will not be dismissing any of Freedman's claims with prejudice, but will basically allow him to replead every single claim he has made in his FAC against all of the parties? Except maybe he will possibly grant the NYT MTD. That seems to be what you are saying, but I'm not sure I've got you right.

There is no record here, lady.

I would just like clarification from the litigators lol telling me that the judge won’t dismiss anything outright besides maybe the NYT claims, since they seem to believe I am rather insane to think the judge might think it would be futile to allow Baldoni to amend some of his more clearly extremely tenuous claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to get you guys on the record, you think Judge Liman will not be dismissing any of Freedman's claims with prejudice, but will basically allow him to replead every single claim he has made in his FAC against all of the parties? Except maybe he will possibly grant the NYT MTD. That seems to be what you are saying, but I'm not sure I've got you right.

There is no record here, lady.

I would just like clarification from the litigators lol telling me that the judge won’t dismiss anything outright besides maybe the NYT claims, since they seem to believe I am rather insane to think the judge might think it would be futile to allow Baldoni to amend some of his more clearly extremely tenuous claims.

Nobody said nothing would be dismissed, but more will stay in that gets kicked out. And the judge will allow them to replead much of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to get you guys on the record, you think Judge Liman will not be dismissing any of Freedman's claims with prejudice, but will basically allow him to replead every single claim he has made in his FAC against all of the parties? Except maybe he will possibly grant the NYT MTD. That seems to be what you are saying, but I'm not sure I've got you right.

There is no record here, lady.

I would just like clarification from the litigators lol telling me that the judge won’t dismiss anything outright besides maybe the NYT claims, since they seem to believe I am rather insane to think the judge might think it would be futile to allow Baldoni to amend some of his more clearly extremely tenuous claims.

Nobody said nothing would be dismissed, but more will stay in that gets kicked out. And the judge will allow them to replead much of it.

Then it seems like you’re really just saying the same thing I did — many claims will get dismissed and while Liman will allow some to be repled he actually will dismiss some with prejudice because repleading would be futile — except with a pro-Freedman spin. Congrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to get you guys on the record, you think Judge Liman will not be dismissing any of Freedman's claims with prejudice, but will basically allow him to replead every single claim he has made in his FAC against all of the parties? Except maybe he will possibly grant the NYT MTD. That seems to be what you are saying, but I'm not sure I've got you right.

There is no record here, lady.

I would just like clarification from the litigators lol telling me that the judge won’t dismiss anything outright besides maybe the NYT claims, since they seem to believe I am rather insane to think the judge might think it would be futile to allow Baldoni to amend some of his more clearly extremely tenuous claims.

Nobody said nothing would be dismissed, but more will stay in that gets kicked out. And the judge will allow them to replead much of it.

Then it seems like you’re really just saying the same thing I did — many claims will get dismissed and while Liman will allow some to be repled he actually will dismiss some with prejudice because repleading would be futile — except with a pro-Freedman spin. Congrats?

Touch grass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the uneducated couple, Blake and Ryan, are being bled dry by their self-serving team. In the end the team of lawyers, consultants, and crisis PR will collect millions of dollars in fees, Blake and Ryan will age 10 years in 1 year, their marriage will be on the rocks, and their careers and reputations will be permanently marred. Studios, bankers, and super agents will fade from them and move on. Aging talent like Blake and Ryan are ten a penny in Hollywood.

Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

Exactly zero studio execs would refer to Blake and Ryan as "ten a penny" in Hollywood -- they are worth a ton of money, not just to themselves but also to studios. Ryan in particular. TBH, neither of them make the kind of movies or TV I actually want to watch. I've never seen any Deadpool movies, never saw IEWU. I watched A Simple Favor and it was okay for something to watch while doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen.

But even I can see that they are incredibly marketable and make a lot of people (including Wayfarer) a ton of money. Obviously a lot of media consumers like them well enough to spend a lot more money on their movies.

These insults about Blake and Ryan being stupid and old and uneducated and having ruined their careers all sound like when Donald Trump is mad that someone very popular doesn't like him so he calls them losers even when they objectively are not. It just comes off as very petty wishful thinking.

Yes! I honestly don’t understand why they start spamming the thread with this stuff every page. It’s like they believe that if they say it, it will come true. And it’s so regular — like twice every page almost! Also the constant imperatives to Lively and Reynolds to settle, as though they believe that they are reading this thread lol. It’s just kind of bizarre.

It’s weird that you think they won’t settle. Blake is getting hammered everywhere she goes and she’s become repellent to her own friends who want to distance themselves from this drama. The problem imo is actually that Lively might have a hard time agreeing to terms Baldoni is willing to accept.

I believe that nothing in Blake’s case rises to the level of harassment, and certainly not to the level of “sexual predator”, which is defamatory per se. Ryan Reynolds in particular is going to have a really hard time getting out of this just based on his behavior and the facts of the case.

Blake had a right to feel how she felt, but once wayfarer addressed her concerns, that should’ve been the end of it. The problem is she continued to escalate. Even if there was a smear campaign - and if you believe Wallace’s sworn declaration, there likely wasn’t one - she’s going to have to prove that the smear campaign was retaliation for harassment and not just a defensive move in response to her cutting him out of promos and fueling rumors about him in the press. Blake has a few privileges that may help her avoid liability for her defamation, but it’s not going to be easy, and if she wins in court based on what the public sees as unfair privilege or a technicality, she’ll still lose in the court of public opinion. She has every reason to settle at this point.

DP. I appreciate your measured post which isn't just "Blake and Ryan are horrible and need to settle" (I'm not a fan of theirs, just find those posts/rants tedious). I actually agree with most of what you say except the part about settlement. While she may have some success getting some of Baldoni's claims against her dismissed, she'll have a very hard time winning her SH/retaliation case at trial. I'll wait to see how discovery pans out, but so far, to the extent that there has been any objective documentary evidence on the SH (videos, texts, the OBGYN actor's imdb page) it pretty much supports Baldoni. Basically I think her case is strong on the law, and his is strong on the facts. But I'm keeping an open mind and am interested to see what happens with depositions because she claims there were witnesses to a lot of these events, like the driver who allegedly said she shouldn't be alone with Baldoni anymore. As it stands right now, I think an SH trial would be embarrassing for her.

On the settlement, here's where I'm caught up. I imagine she expected a lot of sympathy for her MeToo story. She would be the victim of SH and Ryan her knight in shining armor, the devoted husband defending her from fat shaming. It's a good narrative, but the problem is a lot of people think she lied (reasonably so, because Baldoni has provided some proof in his defense). If she settles that's basically admitting she lied. I can't see coming back from that. Of course they might sign a paper that says she's not admitting to liability, but that's what everyone will assume. I guess she can try to spin it as they're just so mean to her that she can't take it anymore, but that's a hard sell. So I feel like they're in this now and they have to see it through. I always feel like a lot of people who say she needs to settle (not you specifically) are saying that either because they want to see justice for Baldoni without a drawn out case (fair) or they just dislike her and want her to admit she lied so they can excoriate her (which I get). At least with the case remaining pending, she can still allow the possibility for people to think she's telling the truth, but if she settles, that door is closed.

I am curious what the general public really thinks. People who are very online skew Baldoni. I wonder what the person who is only seeing headlines in legacy media and streaming thinks... I kind of assume they just consider it a he said, she said, and aren't as aware of all the evidence, and probably think both parties did something bad.

PP here, that’s a good point, just seems really risky. On your other point, I’m also curious what people only following legacy media think. Legacy media has been very pro Blake to the point of appearing biased, which is disappointing to see. But that’s part of the reason I feel particularly bad for Justin. He’s been irreparably, and I think unfairly, smeared by this. His name should never be in the same conversation as Harvey Weinstein but that’s where we’re at. I think he needs to get damages and I feel Blake’s behavior has been really cruel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 [b]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?

This is the first motion to dismiss, he’ll be liberal in allowing them to replead. You seem to write a lot without actually having any litigation experience. And are weirdly emotionally invested in the case. The judge will not be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird to me that Team Balboner is so surprised by anti-Freedman comments here given some of the ridiculously uncivil and frankly vile remarks Bryan Freedman has made to the press, and the absolutely uncivil tone posters here regularly take about Lively and Reynolds which you curiously don’t seem to have a problem with and in fact participate in. The idea that Bryan Freedman is exempt from scorn because he’s a lawyer like “us” essentially ignores and gives him a pass for the particular brand of lawyer he is.

Lawyers on all sides have done this but you are emotionally invested only in Blake. The amount of personal antagonism you express towards Freedman day in and day out is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is a college drop out, like Ryan.

Did Jamey Heath go to college?

...

How much are you bleeding from Ryan and Blake for this moronic astroturfing? Imagine the pitch for this crap: "For 1.75 million USD we have this genius idea to spam every forum and social media with r**** wing buzzwords to wed casual observers who simply don't believe Blake with far-r**** political trolls! We will gaslight the public this is a far-r**** conspiracy to take down a middle aged actress!" lol The average T**** voter doesn't have the faintest clue who in the hell Blake Lively is. And I assume most of the dorks who saw Ryan Reynold's corny super hero movies are dweebs on reddit.

Whatever the case, Blake and Ryan's Q Scores are permanently in the toilet and they're both old in Hollywood terms. Their star power was fading no matter what, which is why they've been desperately trying to pivot to bigger things they're both lack the intellect and experience to warrant.

wut

[Anonymous]

At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

Wasn’t commenting in the early pages, but the nyt benefits from pretty strong privileges so they’ll likely get off in court. However, this was really poor journalism and makes them look bad. The daily podcast episode on this was awful too, and that was after the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

It isn’t idiotic in the least, they had facts that were sufficiently unusual, I.e. the use and manipulation of texts, sufficient to take a swing at defamation. It’s a very high hurdle, but they were justified in taking a shot. Some judges might let it advance even if this judge does not.