Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.[/quote]

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.[/quote]

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer. [/quote]

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).[/quote]

Here was some considered legal analysis from a Baldoni supporter about how nothing would be dismissed with prejudice and how Ryan Reynolds being a narcissist would, I guess, keep him in the case. Oh well. [/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