Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

No, it would not be. Isn’t that obvious? There has to be actual harm to her as a result of the retaliation campaign. If he retained someone, and they did no work, Lively has not been harmed.

Do you know that because you're an attorney or does it just seem like common sense to you?

People are posting conflicting things.

[Anonymous]

I saw a separate question relevant to the NYT and the metadata. Basic but intriguing-

If the Times reporters only had a draft complaint not yet sworn to by Lively, would it be reasonable reliance to use her claims as sworn if alleged facts? If they began drafting their wannabe MeToo takedown in October bur the California civil rights claim was not submitted and thus finalized til December, what does that mean if anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

No, it would not be. Isn’t that obvious? There has to be actual harm to her as a result of the retaliation campaign. If he retained someone, and they did no work, Lively has not been harmed.

But Lively is claiming breach of contract because Baldoni promised not to retaliate as part of that agreement in January 2024. So it's not just a retaliation claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

Rearranging a schedule to accommodate a family illness is normal. Normalize sick leave, including for parents of sick kids.

Covid testing should be required, especially if there is a Covid outbreak in the workplace.

The other stuff, fine, but let's not act like someone who wants to be home with their sick baby while they are still nursing, or who would like testing protocols to prevent spread of illness, is automatically being a diva. Those are normal things to do and don't belong in that list with stuff like wardrobe demands or getting people fired.

Let’s strive harder for honesty here. Let’s try.

PP did not carve out those accommodations as extravagances or extol Wayfarer for being run by saints motivated by maternal health during cold and flu season. The discussion was about relative power and the ability of someone who is claiming falsely IMO to have been disempowered in her workplace to have every complaint and concerned heard, and answered in her affirmative favor.

Nothing I said is dishonest.

I just think it gross to lump in what I view to be perfectly legitimate employee requests with the other behavior. Literally any employee should be allowed to request a scheduling change to accommodate a sick child. Anyone. And Covid testing in a workplace that has had a Covid outbreak seems normal to me.

I'm not even commenting on her relative power level on the set. I'm just saying that throwing those two requests in with a laundry list of other requests as being somehow indicative of diva behavior isn't fair. I'm not a diva at work and have never demanded thousands in wardrobe funds, but I have every right to say "look by 6 month old is sick with Covid and I'm nursing right now and it's the only thing that soothes her, I would like to bump this meeting until next week." That's a totally normal request.

I didn't mean to imply that BL was acting like a diva. I said that the through-line of his complaint was him striving hard to be accommodating and meet all of her requests. I don't know if her requests were reasonable or excessive, because I've never worked on a movie set. (Some seem excessive to me, but I'm also not a movie star; I bet most of what she does would feel excessive to me).

Fair enough. I guess my point is that an employer SHOULD strive to meet those specific requests because they are very normal. I have no idea whether her other requests were normal or not, but I don't think testing for Covid or moving meetings for sick family members is bending over backwards.

I genuinely don't know what's standard, given all the moving parts involved in making a movie. When you read his complaint straight through, though, it certainly paints a picture of her as the alpha and him as the simp. And once you have that dynamic in your head, it's hard to resolve that with some of her claims. You kinda think, well, she clearly could have gotten whatever she asked for, and she didn't seem to have a problem asserting herself, so why was she so uncomfortable. And I do think that's most of what people are reacting to. I don't know if any of that even matters though, because he agreed to her demands, one of which was not to retaliate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

No, it would not be. Isn’t that obvious? There has to be actual harm to her as a result of the retaliation campaign. If he retained someone, and they did no work, Lively has not been harmed.

Do you know that because you're an attorney or does it just seem like common sense to you?

People are posting conflicting things.

I am an attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw a separate question relevant to the NYT and the metadata. Basic but intriguing-

If the Times reporters only had a draft complaint not yet sworn to by Lively, would it be reasonable reliance to use her claims as sworn if alleged facts? If they began drafting their wannabe MeToo takedown in October bur the California civil rights claim was not submitted and thus finalized til December, what does that mean if anything?

Might depend on when they got a copy of the complaint. I'd actually be surprised if they got it in October, even an early draft.

My guess is that Lively started talking to them in October and at that point may not even have planned to sue (that's why they say they have hours of interviews with Lively -- they'd been talking to her for a while). But perhaps they didn't view it as newsworthy until she filed the complaint. That actually works in NYT's favor if they waited until there was a newsworthy event to report -- it shows restraint when they were just allegations.

I suspect the discovery of the PR reacts us also relevant to when they decided to publish. Their coverage was very much focused on those texts. Again, if the didn't have those until December, this is beneficial to the NYT. It would mean they refrained from reporting until there was more concrete evidence of wrongdoing by Baldoni. Remember some of the texts are from Baldoni himself. It pushes it outside the realm of "she said" when they have his texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

No, it would not be. Isn’t that obvious? There has to be actual harm to her as a result of the retaliation campaign. If he retained someone, and they did no work, Lively has not been harmed.

But Lively is claiming breach of contract because Baldoni promised not to retaliate as part of that agreement in January 2024. So it's not just a retaliation claim.

Retaining someone who does no work cannot be the basis for a retaliation claim of this type either. Use your heads, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

Rearranging a schedule to accommodate a family illness is normal. Normalize sick leave, including for parents of sick kids.

Covid testing should be required, especially if there is a Covid outbreak in the workplace.

The other stuff, fine, but let's not act like someone who wants to be home with their sick baby while they are still nursing, or who would like testing protocols to prevent spread of illness, is automatically being a diva. Those are normal things to do and don't belong in that list with stuff like wardrobe demands or getting people fired.

Let’s strive harder for honesty here. Let’s try.

PP did not carve out those accommodations as extravagances or extol Wayfarer for being run by saints motivated by maternal health during cold and flu season. The discussion was about relative power and the ability of someone who is claiming falsely IMO to have been disempowered in her workplace to have every complaint and concerned heard, and answered in her affirmative favor.

Nothing I said is dishonest.

I just think it gross to lump in what I view to be perfectly legitimate employee requests with the other behavior. Literally any employee should be allowed to request a scheduling change to accommodate a sick child. Anyone. And Covid testing in a workplace that has had a Covid outbreak seems normal to me.

I'm not even commenting on her relative power level on the set. I'm just saying that throwing those two requests in with a laundry list of other requests as being somehow indicative of diva behavior isn't fair. I'm not a diva at work and have never demanded thousands in wardrobe funds, but I have every right to say "look by 6 month old is sick with Covid and I'm nursing right now and it's the only thing that soothes her, I would like to bump this meeting until next week." That's a totally normal request.

I didn't mean to imply that BL was acting like a diva. I said that the through-line of his complaint was him striving hard to be accommodating and meet all of her requests. I don't know if her requests were reasonable or excessive, because I've never worked on a movie set. (Some seem excessive to me, but I'm also not a movie star; I bet most of what she does would feel excessive to me).

Fair enough. I guess my point is that an employer SHOULD strive to meet those specific requests because they are very normal. I have no idea whether her other requests were normal or not, but I don't think testing for Covid or moving meetings for sick family members is bending over backwards.

I genuinely don't know what's standard, given all the moving parts involved in making a movie. When you read his complaint straight through, though, it certainly paints a picture of her as the alpha and him as the simp. And once you have that dynamic in your head, it's hard to resolve that with some of her claims. You kinda think, well, she clearly could have gotten whatever she asked for, and she didn't seem to have a problem asserting herself, so why was she so uncomfortable. And I do think that's most of what people are reacting to. I don't know if any of that even matters though, because he agreed to her demands, one of which was not to retaliate.

That's fine. My only point is that an employer is not a "simp" for agreeing to test for Covid or delay a meeting due to illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

Sorry if I confused anyone. I'm not an attorney and I have no idea. I was making a guess and trying to pose it more as a question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

Rearranging a schedule to accommodate a family illness is normal. Normalize sick leave, including for parents of sick kids.

Covid testing should be required, especially if there is a Covid outbreak in the workplace.

The other stuff, fine, but let's not act like someone who wants to be home with their sick baby while they are still nursing, or who would like testing protocols to prevent spread of illness, is automatically being a diva. Those are normal things to do and don't belong in that list with stuff like wardrobe demands or getting people fired.

Let’s strive harder for honesty here. Let’s try.

PP did not carve out those accommodations as extravagances or extol Wayfarer for being run by saints motivated by maternal health during cold and flu season. The discussion was about relative power and the ability of someone who is claiming falsely IMO to have been disempowered in her workplace to have every complaint and concerned heard, and answered in her affirmative favor.

Nothing I said is dishonest.

I just think it gross to lump in what I view to be perfectly legitimate employee requests with the other behavior. Literally any employee should be allowed to request a scheduling change to accommodate a sick child. Anyone. And Covid testing in a workplace that has had a Covid outbreak seems normal to me.

I'm not even commenting on her relative power level on the set. I'm just saying that throwing those two requests in with a laundry list of other requests as being somehow indicative of diva behavior isn't fair. I'm not a diva at work and have never demanded thousands in wardrobe funds, but I have every right to say "look by 6 month old is sick with Covid and I'm nursing right now and it's the only thing that soothes her, I would like to bump this meeting until next week." That's a totally normal request.

I didn't mean to imply that BL was acting like a diva. I said that the through-line of his complaint was him striving hard to be accommodating and meet all of her requests. I don't know if her requests were reasonable or excessive, because I've never worked on a movie set. (Some seem excessive to me, but I'm also not a movie star; I bet most of what she does would feel excessive to me).

Fair enough. I guess my point is that an employer SHOULD strive to meet those specific requests because they are very normal. I have no idea whether her other requests were normal or not, but I don't think testing for Covid or moving meetings for sick family members is bending over backwards.

I genuinely don't know what's standard, given all the moving parts involved in making a movie. When you read his complaint straight through, though, it certainly paints a picture of her as the alpha and him as the simp. And once you have that dynamic in your head, it's hard to resolve that with some of her claims. You kinda think, well, she clearly could have gotten whatever she asked for, and she didn't seem to have a problem asserting herself, so why was she so uncomfortable. And I do think that's most of what people are reacting to. I don't know if any of that even matters though, because he agreed to her demands, one of which was not to retaliate.

That's fine. My only point is that an employer is not a "simp" for agreeing to test for Covid or delay a meeting due to illness.

I see your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

No, it would not be. Isn’t that obvious? There has to be actual harm to her as a result of the retaliation campaign. If he retained someone, and they did no work, Lively has not been harmed.

But Lively is claiming breach of contract because Baldoni promised not to retaliate as part of that agreement in January 2024. So it's not just a retaliation claim.

Retaining someone who does no work cannot be the basis for a retaliation claim of this type either. Use your heads, people.

I don't think this matters because it seems obvious from the texts that Wallace did work for them. It makes no sense why the PR people would credit Wallace for their success if he didn't perform work for them -- it's not a comment that can be explained away as sarcasm or tongue in cheek.

I mean, yeah, depose Wallace and let's find out exactly what he did, but the evidence he did work seems very strong at this point. The question is only what the work was and howuch if it helps did.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

The California complaint would not have become public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

The California complaint would not have become public.

I could have sworn someone here said it would have, and I saw someone in another forum saying it would have, so I guess people are just lying out of their asses?

Anyways, that’s crazy then. I don’t understand does that does not then utterly weaken the Times case. Yes they’re reporting on a document but on a document they shouldn’t even have.