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]Livetweet: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925

[/quote]

Sounds like a rough start for WP, unless Liman is going to be like this with both sides:

All rise!
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: This is a case about making a movie, one with highly charged romantic and sexual themes. After signing on, an intimacy coordinator was made available. The book called for sexy scenes

Judge: That doesn't mean you agree to harassment.
Baldoni's lawyer Bach: There is caselaw about discussion of oral sex in a writer's room - in a typical office setting, it's inappropriate. But Mr. Baldoni stands accused of commenting on her wardrobe

Judge Liman: Was he allowed, while dancing, to touch her wherever?
Baldoni's Bach: That's not what the facts show. There's no evidence that anyone was taking aim at Blake Livery because she was a woman. It was about making a film with a certain sexual aesthetic
[/quote]

Here's the rest of the tweets from Baldoni's opener:

Baldoni's Bach: A petty or trivial  slight does not constitute a hostile environment. They're bringing in the small potatoes.
Judge Liman: What if the men on the set were commenting, You look hot, only to the women?
Baldoni's Bach: It was resolved

Judge Liman: What is the significance of the apology?
Baldoni's Bach: That the office took every complaint seriously. See Liebowitz v. NY Transit Authority, the 2d Circuit decision. Here, they don't have an adverse act, only a so-called smear campaign

Baldoni's Bach: All they have in Mr. Baldoni promoting himself, and advocating for victims of domestic violence - that is not against Ms. Lively. At most, there are other people introducing content onto the Internet, then some thumbs-ups. It's PR

Judge Liman: How do you distinguish amplifying negative content from generating it, as retaliation?
Baldoni's Bach: If an associate in my office went and talked to a court without my permission and I can't respond, I don't control them. Here, Ms. Lively had control

Baldoni's Bach: If you're employee, Social Security is withheld, you get medical insurance - that's not the case here, under Title 7
Judge Liman: That's not strictly true. You can be an employee without a W2.
Baldoni's Bach: She claims millions in damages

Baldoni's lawyer Alexandra Shapiro: On defamation, Ms Lively's claims are based entirely on counsel's statements - her claims fail. Mr. Freedman's statement reflected his opinions.
Judge Liman: But he called it a desperate attempt, to ruin others' lives

Judge Liman: This is like Carroll versus Trump.
Baldoni's Shapiro: A lawyer, in essentially a tabloid dispute, can make these arguments. A lot of the evidence known to Mr. Freedman at the time are easily interpreted as Mr. Freedman did, on her motivation

Judge Liman: That suggests a dispute of fact [and therefore no summary judgment]
Baldoni's Shapiro: The Trump case was different, the President made clearly factual statements, I never met that woman, when there were photos showing that was false

Baldoni's Shapiro: What Ms. Lively is trying to do here is say she can leak a complaint before it is filed to the New York Times, and his lawyer is not allowed to respond until he files his answer 20 days later
Judge Liman: He could say, these allegations are wrong

Judge Liman: But there are limits, when he gets into motive
Baldoni's Shapiro: These were statements of opinion. Carroll versus Trump is different, it was about facts, not opinion. Mr. Freedman was making a general denial. But know lawyers are not objective

Baldoni's Shapiro: Ms Lively kept refusing to sign the contract-
Judge Liman: What about the open items, on stills and confidentiality and the like?
Baldoni's Shapiro: There was back and forth about those issues.

Baldoni's 3d lawyer today Ellyn S. Garofalo: Here are cases: the O'Connor case, and two more recent ones from 2025: Hill v Workday describes what must be shown to establish the situs of the contract and of the wrongful conduct. Compare that case

Baldoni's Garofalo: To allege retaliation, you have to have specific facts - what decisions were made, and where. Ms Lively says some may have occurred in California, without facts. A Judge Furman case-
Judge Liman: I'm aware of that.

Judge Liman: What work does "made and performed" in the contract do?
Baldoni's Garofalo: I'm not entire sure. But under a straight extraterritoriality analysis, the outcome is the same. On sanctions, it is plaintiff's burden to show the elements. They haven't[/quote]

Lively's attorneys up:
Judge: I'll hear from counsel for Lively.
Lively's lawyer: They say Ms Lively was not targeted on the basis of her gender-
Judge Liman: Don't your Title 7 claims cover it all?
Lively's lawyer: We are seeking damages beyond Title 7. She admit the facts are disputed

Lively's lawyer (seems to be Kristin Bender) - He came into her trailer and glanced at her, she says. He calls it trivial. Ms. Lively and veteran make up and hair specialists say they said No No No - her breasts were exposed and Mr. Heath came in

Judge Liman: Can you distinguish Mr. Heath from Mr. Baldoni?
Lively's lawyer: Both are attributable to Wayfarer. 
Judge Liman: Your point on kissed and nuzzled, what is your limiting principle? Can a director improvise?
Lively's lawyer: Only with consent

Judge Liman: Could a director direct the female and male lead to touch each other in a different way than in the script?
Lively's lawyer: Not without consent. There are intimacy coordinators, nudity riders.
Judge Liman: Are you saying they are required by statute?

Lively's lawyer: There must be consent to touch.
Judge Liman: What is the limit? In a dance scene, saying to put hand in a different part of the back - might be OK. Where do you draw the line?
Lively's lawyer: There is a subjective standard: She did not consent

Lively's lawyer: This was a dance sequence. He leans in and kisses her, nuzzles her - she leans away, you can see the look on her face in the video - she is clearly having her boundaries cross. She says, Let's talk

Lively's lawyer: The only way to make sure it is acceptable is to get consent.
Judge Liman: Are you saying if he suggests more graphic scenes, it is harassment?
Lively's lawyer: She signed on to a particular script. That was her expectation. Mr. Baldoni changed it

Lively's lawyer: The author of the book said she did not think it should be hot and sexy. But Mr. Baldoni added in to crawl toward him for oral sex, and climaxing together
Judge Liman: You have brought up other women
Lively's lawyer: It is MeToo evidence

Lively's lawyer: There was Jenny Slate, and Isabela Ferrer. That's Liebowitz case was different, she was not harassed herself. That is not the case we have here. I will move on to retaliation. The defendants take too narrow a view[/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