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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.[/quote]

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.[/quote]

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.[/quote]

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).[/quote]

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now  :lol:

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.[/quote]

She did make the request to destroy the dailies directly.  The text about the destruction didn't mention her team.

Further, at her depostion, she denied that she [i]or anyone acting on her behalf [/i][b]made such a request.

The text also indicates that all dailies were destroyed, and that there was no nudity.

Lastly, You have no personal knowledge of what Giannettti knew or didn't know, so let's just discount your descvription of her as "someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, "  she 's an uniinterested third party who establishs (1) dailies were destroyed at Blake's request despite lack of nudity, and (2) Blake lied at her deposition.  Clearly a Blake bot like you would try to discredit her.
[/quote]

None of this has ever been litigated. You are basing this entire opinion on a single text in which Giannetti clearly shows she doesn't know what she's talking about because she claims IEWU has no nudity. But it did have nudity, and was filmed with nudity, which is why Lively had a nudity rider for the film. Yet based on this text which contains a clear falsehood, you are declaring that Lively lied in her deposition. Yet Wayfarer at no point accused Lively of lying in her deposition, and also didn't raise this issue of Lively supposedly destroying evidence at any point during litigation.

This is how the Baldoni Reddit slop system works. These meritless legal claims (Vanzan, the dailies thing, everything related to Taylor Swift) gets suggested by Freedman or via an unsourced article in a tabloid (meaning: Freedman) but never actually filed in the case because it is in fact meritless. The sad little corner of Reddit full of people who have made hating Blake Lively their entire personality goes manic on cue. The content creators make hay (and $$$) off the issue with TT and YT videos. And then you all think this is a settled fact of the case even though from the perspective of the docket, the judge, and the actual law, it never happened at all. Because they never even brought these arguments! Because they are baseless. And yet you parrot them here like the good little lapdogs you are.

I said it before and I'll said again: I feel sorry for the pro-Baldoni folks. Imagine being led around by your nose like this for almost two years and not even realizing it. [/quote]

Sorry for the inconvenient truth --Lively knew Van Zan was coming in at trial and filed a motion in limine to try to stop it.

Why would WF "publicly accuse" Lively at lying at her depo?  They would just save it for her cross examination at trial.

I don't know what  or why you are babbling on about reddit -- I don't read it.

What I do know is Blake was so desperate to settle the case that she settled with no money being exchanged and no NDA.  And what a coindcidence, immediately after the news about her document destruction broke.  A histrocially bad settlement for a plaintiff who claimed over  and over she just wanted her day in Court.[/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