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]Blake fans. Let’s call a truce for a sec. I know you’re focused on defending lively at all costs. But I would like your honest, unemotional opinion on the following:

1. Do you think the court will rule Blake is an employee and not an independent contractor? If IC we can stop debating her SH claims.

2. Have you seen any evidence of a smear campaign beyond Jen Abel’s texts? I have not, but maybe I missed something.

3. Do you think she can overcome the temporal gap between her “protected activity” and retaliation (18 mos apart) when the court usually limits this to 90s days?

These are serious issues with her case imo. [/quote]

1. That is a legit issue. WF made some very, very good points in the MJOP and MSJ on this issue, including how they moved filming location for her. The standard of those legal documents was MUCH better than their initial pleadings and Freedman's games, and they should have filed a proper MTD some of these claims to start with, to avoid discovery that I think has been very damaging to Baldoni (as opposed to playing games hiding discovery). I don't know how Liman will rule, and I'm interested to hear the arguments tomorrow. I hope it will be covered by a neutral observer like InnerCityPress, not content creators who tend to lean Baldoni or mainsteam media which leans Lively.

2. I posted it here months ago, but there some document from Lively's side (I believe it was a response to an RFP on the question you are asking) where they laid out examples of Wayfarer PR planting negative stories on Blake, and one of them was pretty much writing out talking points for a Sage Steele video, and there were many texts of them passing along links for Jed to boost or suppress, (never a response that said "Jed is wondering why you're asking him to boost since all he does is monitor" lol), and some text from Katie Case talking about the comments on a post implying it came from them. I found it compelling.

3. She doesn't have to. For retaliation, she needs to show causation. Often times, courts will let you infer causation from temporal proximity. (For example, if someone complained about SH and the next day got fired and had no bad performance reviews). Ff Lively can make a case for causation without temporal proximity, then that's enough to move forward. She has texts saying "if her concerns should come to light" and such which can reasonably be read to understand that they're referring to having this campaign prepared because of her SH complaints. I think that will be enough for Liman to let it go forward and I would agree with that decision. It doesn't mean the jury will find that retaliation was the cause, but to win the motion she just needs to show a jury could make that finding.[/quote]

On #1 think WF did not go for MTD because they wanted the evidence to come out and because  they did not want Lively to get to amend her complaint again.

On #2 I didn’t know that but I’m not sure it will be enough.

On #3 I find the temporal gap to be really compelling especially considering alongside intervening factors (Lively’s behavior towards Baldoni was atrocious and there’s evidence she caused bad press about herself and Baldoni by having the cast unfollow etc). To me this breaks causation.

[/quote]

On point #3, I do think there is a fair argument for a break in causation. I don't agree that Blake got the rest of the cast to unfollow him because reading through the depos they really do all seem to hate him all on their own. I do think you could argue that the things she was doing with taking over his edit time were reasons for his crisis PR campaign, not just the SH. I think it's probably grey enough for the judge to let it go forward.

Thank you for a pleasant conversation.[/quote]

Colleen Hoover said Blake told her to unfollow Baldoni in her deposition.  If she said it to her, she said it to others.  It’s not likely everyone separately got the idea to u follow him at the same time.[/quote]

The “middle school” poster had it right. Lively and Reynolds targeted Baldoni to thieve the project and any future films from him well before a single one of their alleged triggering events occurred. The text reveals are unbelievably damning.[/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