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][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]

There is absolutely no nudity in this film. Absolutely none.

What do you mean she was talking out of her ass? Do you think she was just lying? So everyone’s lying but lively? She had never seen someone ask for dailies to be destroyed that didn’t have nudity. Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed and not just selective ones. You could see that clearly from the text.

Further in her deposition, she was asked did you ask to have dailies destroyed, she said no. She could’ve easily said, obviously my team stipulated that dailies with nudity would be destroyed. She didn’t say that because there were no scenes with nudity.[/quote]

If there were no scenes with nudity then why did Lively have a nudity rider.

And how can you say "Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed"? That's not even what Gianetti's text said.

You understand who was in the possession of the dailies and would responsible for deleting them, right? Wayfarer. So if this really happened, if Lively demanded that a bunch of dailies that weren't even related to her nudity rider be destroyed, there would be a paper trail. It would not come down to an offhand remark by a Sony executive. There would be communications either from Lively or her team detailing the destruction of dailies, including the scope of these dailies. And then someone at Wayfarerer would actually have to sign off on their destruction (probably multiple someones because this is IP, so likely Jamey Heath and a lawyer), and then someone on staff would actually have to go delete them and report back that it had been done. And Wayfarer would have evidence of all of this. It's a documented process.

So where is it? Why is everyone relying on this one comment from Giannetti, who wouldn't even be directly involved?

Y'all are making a mountain out of literally nothing. There isn't even a molehill here.[/quote]

The text clearly says the dailies were destroyed at Lively’s request.  Seems like a paper trail.

She asked Sony because she had cut WF out of the process by September 2024.  She presumably didn’t realize they had their own copies.  [/quote]

The text to Josh Greenstein, another Sony exec, word for word:

"call when u can. not urgent but Blake asking us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask Bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok? (1st time ive ever been asked to do this in movie with no nudity but ok.)"

She is saying Blake (unclear if Blake herself asked or someone else on her behalf -- it is normal in Hollywood where people are represented for something like this to go through multiple people) asked SONY for some dailies destroyed but doesn't specify which and even says they will not necessarily delete them all. She does does that she is asking vendors to delete all dailies and provide proof of destruction (this is standard). The comment about nudity is unclear. Is she saying that the request to destroy dailies at all is unusual or that the request for vendors to provide proof of destruction is unusual when there is no nudity? Who knows.

Also this is a text between two Sony execs. Sony of course had access to the dailies because they did a cut of the film (with Blake) plus the promotion of the film (dailies footage might be used in trailers and other promo even if it's a moment not specifically included in the film or from another cut). But Wayfarer owned the dailies and would have all originals. It's their intellectual property.

This is a very incomplete picture of what happened with the dailies and actually proves very little. It shows that Blake asked SONY to delete some dailies and also that Sony directed vendors to delete all dailies, and that Giannetti thought this seemed overzealous for this particular film but also agreed to it.

Here's what it doesn't prove: anything about destruction of Wayfarer's original copies of the dailies. IF Blake asked them to delete the dailies, there would be evidence of that request plus evidence it had occurred. Yet we have none. Wayfarer isn't even a party to this text.

It's nothing. This is nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that Blake lied in her deposition, or that she was attempting to destroy evidence, or that she filed her lawsuit with malice. It's not enough.[/quote]

You say it’s not enough but this is the problem with CA 47.1 and why it will be ruled unconstitutional. It’s a sloppy overbroad law that allows the prevailing defendant in a defamation case to seek treble damages without clarifying if the defendant needs to actually prevail on 47.1. Baldoni lost on litigation privilege and fair report, not 47.1. Jed lost on jurisdiction. A ruling on 47.1 requires a fact finding on malice which cannot happen here because there was no trial. This is why Liman is asking whose burden is it. Blake is going to lose this one. And if you care about the constitution you should want her to lose. California is notorious for passing sloppy and extreme laws. We don’t need their mess imposed on the rest of the country. [/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