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]I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?[/quote]

Here is the declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.744.0.pdf

You should read it before weighing in because the person is quite clearly high level (enough sway to get Baldoni banned from set, and important enough that Steve Sarowitz requested a 1:1 meeting with them). Also Sony wasn't involved and is not mentioned, there is no allegation Baldoni grabbed anyone's ass (the allegation is that he was verbally abusive and had multiple negative interactions with the person and others on the set).

I'm not saying it's Scarlett but maybe before you go around saying "Are we kidding right now?" and "are you listening to yourself?" you should actually read the document in question and get some of the BASIC facts correct.[/quote]

DP. I would advise not reading anything between the lines other than what is written. For example, it does not say Baldoni was banned from that set. There are redacted words before "Mr. Baldoni not be permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences" which is written in subjunctive mood. It could very well be that someone asked, suggested, or requested that Baldoni not be permitted on set, but that this request was not granted. The same goes for declarant's request that he be banned from the marketing and PR.

I don't like Baldoni and will be amused if this is all true, but right now this looks like mad libs and could be all hype like the letter Hudson wrote implying that dozens of content creators were on TAG's list but it was really just Popcorned Planet. Not clear who marked this information confidential and can unseal it. If this person is going to testify their identity is going to be revealed, so what is this theater? I'm skeptical.[/quote]

Yup, me too.  Zero reason for redaction.[/quote]

I could see a reason for redaction in order to minimize the media furor over this person prior to them testifying. They'd be opening themselves up to a ton of online hate the minute they were identified, but as a potential witness they'd have limited ability to defend themselves publicly. Whereas if their identity is revealed closer to the time of their testimony (or, for instance, at the same time as their deposition is released), they could provide the context and explanation in their testimony that might help them whether the media storm a bit better than if it came out now.[/quote]

They signed a declaration attached to a publicly field document.  They shouldn’t have anonymity.[/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