Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.[/quote]

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic). [/quote]

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score. [/quote]

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.[/quote]

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?[/quote]

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.[/quote]

He bankrolled the retaliation.[/quote]

I think part of this is them saying she was never an employee of Wayfarer. If she wasn't an employee, she might not be able to sue them under employment law, and also Sarowitz would not be implicated as an employer for harassment or retaliation that occurred at his company. To back this up they are pointing to the unsigned contract and also some negotiations regarding moving shooting to NJ.

However, on the other side, we see multiple instances of Sarowitz quite clearly operating as an employer, using his position as producer to try and strongarm Lively. This is one of the reasons his comments in his deposition may be relevant -- he's saying he could be on set whenever he wanted because it was his movie, his set, his money. That supports the idea of him being her employer, which would make him liable.

Sarowitz is trying to play it both ways here. He really should have been advised not to talk like that in the depo. He probably was, but is a hothead who doesn't listen to lawyers. Good luck with that.[/quote]

None of this would create an employment contract where none existed.  You must not be a lawyer.[/quote]

Wouldn’t the question of whether this created an employment contract be settled at the MTD stage, not MSJ or trial?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics