Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

DP
Please explain to me why Justin’s claims against Blake would fail for the same reasons as his claims against the NYT. You think Blake benefits from litigation privilege for a claim she filed? Interesting

Why wouldn't she?

Explain to me why she would. Genuinely curious to hear what you think fair report means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not clear to me whether Taylor Swift has been subpoena'd for a depo. This article on TMZ quotes her rep as calling it a document subpoena. It's possible she was asked for texts or documents she has relating to the film and Baldoni, and IIRC as a non-party, she has more protection under the PO to mark things AEO even if they are relevant to the case. So, significant because she's Taylor Swift, but relatively little may come of this.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/05/09/taylor-swift-subpoenaed-witness-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-case/



The rep adds ... "The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, 'My Tears Ricochet.' Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift's name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case."

And that’s only part of the statement. This is the most we’ve “heard” from Taylor on this. It was a bit petty to note she didn’t see the movie for weeks lol (could’ve just said she wasn’t at the premiere) and it’s interesting she stopped short of defending Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

DP
Please explain to me why Justin’s claims against Blake would fail for the same reasons as his claims against the NYT. You think Blake benefits from litigation privilege for a claim she filed? Interesting

Why wouldn't she?

Explain to me why she would. Genuinely curious to hear what you think fair report means.

You wrote litigation privilege, not fair report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

DP
Please explain to me why Justin’s claims against Blake would fail for the same reasons as his claims against the NYT. You think Blake benefits from litigation privilege for a claim she filed? Interesting

Why wouldn't she?

Explain to me why she would. Genuinely curious to hear what you think fair report means.

You wrote litigation privilege, not fair report.

This is what you wrote. You said the claims against the NYT would fail because it was reporting on pending litigation. And then you said his claims against Bl would fail for similar reasons.

So what reasons are those? And how are they the ‘same’?

His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One other thing that KatOrtega has noted is that Bryan Freedman is going to be a very, very busy boy over the next several months. His LA firm only has 20 attorneys, plus the 40 at the NY firm. He sometimes works with Mark Geragos but that firm is busy with the Diddy trial. And yet over the next few months, Freedman needs to deal with Lively discovery, a CA Court of Appeals brief for Rachel Leviss, oral arguments for same, an FKA Twigs trial this fall, an ethics hearing for Tom Sandoval (where Freedman and someone else reportedly told Sandoval he was missing a deadline although Sandoval had asked for an extension due to the fact that his lawyer had been let go), and an arbitration for Faith Stower. This is besides potential depositions and/or hearing on the MTDs in the Lively case, as well as other discovery disputes that arise here.

Meanwhile, Lively does not have this problem, given the hundreds of attorneys at Quinn Emmanuel -- and they are not asking for extensions anymore, they are plowing through and (apparently) meeting deadlines, unlike Freedman.

So I'm curious to see how things go for Freedman over the next few months and I eagerly await karma to catch up with him, although I'm not holding my breath yet.

I frequent the IEWU sub and have to constantly see Kat Ortega's breathless ramblings about Freedman, and now you have to summarize what she says and drag it over here. No thanks.

Not only is Quinn Emanuel not representing Blake, they are representing one of the defendants.

The represent Jones.

There are a lot of firms involved in this case, I don't think we need to get dramatic when someone uses the wrong firm name here or there. This is a casual conversation (or should be).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

Dude. It’s not two separate people. They’re clearly either coordinated or the same person. She probably switches devices or it’s coordinated posters. Note whenever she gets called on it, she wants us to run to Jeff to check. She’s so obvious and loves to write long posts agreeing with herself/her twin poster.

Conspiracies, delusion, paranoia, and an inability to accept reality. Apparently that's your team, guys. Real lawyers and everything, and this is the nonsense you're putting out there. Pouring one out for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One other thing that KatOrtega has noted is that Bryan Freedman is going to be a very, very busy boy over the next several months. His LA firm only has 20 attorneys, plus the 40 at the NY firm. He sometimes works with Mark Geragos but that firm is busy with the Diddy trial. And yet over the next few months, Freedman needs to deal with Lively discovery, a CA Court of Appeals brief for Rachel Leviss, oral arguments for same, an FKA Twigs trial this fall, an ethics hearing for Tom Sandoval (where Freedman and someone else reportedly told Sandoval he was missing a deadline although Sandoval had asked for an extension due to the fact that his lawyer had been let go), and an arbitration for Faith Stower. This is besides potential depositions and/or hearing on the MTDs in the Lively case, as well as other discovery disputes that arise here.

Meanwhile, Lively does not have this problem, given the hundreds of attorneys at Quinn Emmanuel -- and they are not asking for extensions anymore, they are plowing through and (apparently) meeting deadlines, unlike Freedman.

So I'm curious to see how things go for Freedman over the next few months and I eagerly await karma to catch up with him, although I'm not holding my breath yet.

I frequent the IEWU sub and have to constantly see Kat Ortega's breathless ramblings about Freedman, and now you have to summarize what she says and drag it over here. No thanks.

Not only is Quinn Emanuel not representing Blake, they are representing one of the defendants.

The represent Jones.

There are a lot of firms involved in this case, I don't think we need to get dramatic when someone uses the wrong firm name here or there. This is a casual conversation (or should be).

Nobody is getting dramatic.

[Anonymous]

The legal case is interesting, but the PR side is much more fascinating and I vehemently disagree with the poster who said whoever wins the case will win in public opinion. The trial is almost a year away and that ship has sailed for Blake. This latest Taylor news is humiliating for her and there’s simply no way around it.

As another poster said she could’ve easily said she wasn’t at the premier but saying she didn’t see the movie for weeks is a pretty low blow. Saying that she was not involved in casting decisions, that’s going to bite Blake in the ass because now she’s caught in a blatant lie in front of the world. She had young Lily stand on the red carpet and say that Blake told her that Taylor helped cast her. I can pretty much guarantee that’s one of the way she blew smoke up Isabella’s butt - and got her on her side. Lured her in with Taylor.

I’m betting the cast saw through this pretty quickly after Baldoni got his side of the story out and that explains the end of their support.

[Anonymous]

Taylor’s essentially calling Lively a liar. It’s hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

Dude. It’s not two separate people. They’re clearly either coordinated or the same person. She probably switches devices or it’s coordinated posters. Note whenever she gets called on it, she wants us to run to Jeff to check. She’s so obvious and loves to write long posts agreeing with herself/her twin poster.

Conspiracies, delusion, paranoia, and an inability to accept reality. Apparently that's your team, guys. Real lawyers and everything, and this is the nonsense you're putting out there. Pouring one out for you.

What team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The legal case is interesting, but the PR side is much more fascinating and I vehemently disagree with the poster who said whoever wins the case will win in public opinion. The trial is almost a year away and that ship has sailed for Blake. This latest Taylor news is humiliating for her and there’s simply no way around it.

As another poster said she could’ve easily said she wasn’t at the premier but saying she didn’t see the movie for weeks is a pretty low blow. Saying that she was not involved in casting decisions, that’s going to bite Blake in the ass because now she’s caught in a blatant lie in front of the world. She had young Lily stand on the red carpet and say that Blake told her that Taylor helped cast her. I can pretty much guarantee that’s one of the way she blew smoke up Isabella’s butt - and got her on her side. Lured her in with Taylor.

I’m betting the cast saw through this pretty quickly after Baldoni got his side of the story out and that explains the end of their support.

I haven't read this Swift story so I don't know what's going on, but Swift was in the middle of the Eras tour in summer and fall of 2024. If Taylor Swift didn't watch a movie during her Era's tour for several months, that's probably okay. Gets a pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close. I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury. I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up. I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation. But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial. If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that. I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not. As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence? It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.

Dude. It’s not two separate people. They’re clearly either coordinated or the same person. She probably switches devices or it’s coordinated posters. Note whenever she gets called on it, she wants us to run to Jeff to check. She’s so obvious and loves to write long posts agreeing with herself/her twin poster.

Conspiracies, delusion, paranoia, and an inability to accept reality. Apparently that's your team, guys. Real lawyers and everything, and this is the nonsense you're putting out there. Pouring one out for you.

What team?

That describes both teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The legal case is interesting, but the PR side is much more fascinating and I vehemently disagree with the poster who said whoever wins the case will win in public opinion. The trial is almost a year away and that ship has sailed for Blake. This latest Taylor news is humiliating for her and there’s simply no way around it.

As another poster said she could’ve easily said she wasn’t at the premier but saying she didn’t see the movie for weeks is a pretty low blow. Saying that she was not involved in casting decisions, that’s going to bite Blake in the ass because now she’s caught in a blatant lie in front of the world. She had young Lily stand on the red carpet and say that Blake told her that Taylor helped cast her. I can pretty much guarantee that’s one of the way she blew smoke up Isabella’s butt - and got her on her side. Lured her in with Taylor.

I’m betting the cast saw through this pretty quickly after Baldoni got his side of the story out and that explains the end of their support.

I haven't read this Swift story so I don't know what's going on, but Swift was in the middle of the Eras tour in summer and fall of 2024. If Taylor Swift didn't watch a movie during her Era's tour for several months, that's probably okay. Gets a pass.

It's that she says it unsolicited in a statement she prepared. It makes it sound pointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The legal case is interesting, but the PR side is much more fascinating and I vehemently disagree with the poster who said whoever wins the case will win in public opinion. The trial is almost a year away and that ship has sailed for Blake. This latest Taylor news is humiliating for her and there’s simply no way around it.

As another poster said she could’ve easily said she wasn’t at the premier but saying she didn’t see the movie for weeks is a pretty low blow. Saying that she was not involved in casting decisions, that’s going to bite Blake in the ass because now she’s caught in a blatant lie in front of the world. She had young Lily stand on the red carpet and say that Blake told her that Taylor helped cast her. I can pretty much guarantee that’s one of the way she blew smoke up Isabella’s butt - and got her on her side. Lured her in with Taylor.

I’m betting the cast saw through this pretty quickly after Baldoni got his side of the story out and that explains the end of their support.

I haven't read this Swift story so I don't know what's going on, but Swift was in the middle of the Eras tour in summer and fall of 2024. If Taylor Swift didn't watch a movie during her Era's tour for several months, that's probably okay. Gets a pass.

No one’s disagreeing with that. We’re saying Taylor’s rep didn’t have to say that! Her rep literally said “she didn’t even see the movie for weeks”. It was unnecessary but hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

DP
Please explain to me why Justin’s claims against Blake would fail for the same reasons as his claims against the NYT. You think Blake benefits from litigation privilege for a claim she filed? Interesting

Why wouldn't she?

Explain to me why she would. Genuinely curious to hear what you think fair report means.

You wrote litigation privilege, not fair report.

This is what you wrote. You said the claims against the NYT would fail because it was reporting on pending litigation. And then you said his claims against Bl would fail for similar reasons.

So what reasons are those? And how are they the ‘same’?

His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.

Hmm crickets??