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]Liman denied Livelys motion to compel on the independent investigation Wayfafer arranged on the workplace harassment in response to the CRD, but also says Wayfarer can't rely on it.

ORDER denying 228 Motion to Compel. Wayfarer will be precluded from relying on the current investigation in support of the relevant affirmative defense. The motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 228. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/16/2025) (ks) (Entered: 06/16/2025)[/quote]

That seems like a fair decision. It was always kind of silly to expect that they would share this with Lively's team as it's pretty obviously privileged. But I can understand why Lively was concerned that this would essentially be some kind of sham investigation that Wayfarer would point to and say "look, we investigated and found now SH, case closed," especially since they didn't even initiate the investigation until long after the alleged incidents and they put Lively in an impossible bind with it -- she'd already sued, so participating in the investigation could compromise her lawsuit, but not participating in it means her input will not be involved at all.

So this seems like a good decision that side steps all those issues and basically renders the investigation moot except perhaps as an internal method for Wayfarer to identify problems in their HR/training/reporting processes (which for the record I do think exist).[/quote]

PP. Wayfarers contention is that this was a response to the CRD and they were not on notice prior (IMO the 17 point list sufficed but what else can they say, I get it). I think the decision is fair but not really enforceable because Wayfarer will still presumably be able to read the notes and interviews and have that knowledge even if they can't use the actual report to defend themselves. However, it's still attorney client privilege so this was a good move for Wayfarer, and they might use this to develop their witness list.[/quote]

More flood the zone, Nick Shapiro style [/quote]

Talking about the judge's order, issued this afternoon, is flooding the zone with off topic misinformation? Interesting POV.[/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