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]I am super out of the loop of the JV thing. So the pro-Livelier is claiming that Leslie Sloane never said that Justin Baldoni sexually assaulted that and that Bryan Freedman knew that she never said that, correct?

And they're using this text as evidence? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

"I had many conversations with about Blake and never once did she say anything about sexual assault."

I will eat my hat if that's not the text you're referring to, but you have to be joking, right? This text does not prove that Bryan believed Leslie said nothing about SA, and then proceeded to lie about it. All he's saying is that Leslie never said anything about sexual assault to him. Right, but he can also believe that and also believe that Leslie was going around to DM reporters and saying Justin did SA Blake. I am super confused where the huge smoking gun against Bryan is. [/quote]

Here is Wayfarer's motion in opposition to Sloane's request to attorney's fees. Don't you think that text, if authenticated, undercuts this argument in bold?  
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.392.0.pdf
loane points to a declaration submitted by the Daily Mail reporter disavowing that Sloane
had made such a statement, Mot. at 29 (citing Dkt. 286-1). The reporter, James Vituscka, had
previously stated exactly the opposite. In the messages, Vituscka was explaining how, during the
Summer of 2024, Sloane had been telling him that there were issues on set because “everybody
hates Justin” but had not asserted, or even insinuated, that Baldoni had engaged in sexual
misconduct towards Lively. Am. Compl. ¶ 193. Indeed, Sloane had specifically told him that it
[the tensions on set] “ha[d] nothing to do with Blake[.]” Id.
By contrast, after the publication of the Times article, Vituscka noted that “[Sloane is now]
saying that Blake was sexually assaulted.” Id. Vituscka noted the sharp discrepancy in Sloane’s
story and wondered aloud why she would not have said anything back then. Id. , Vituscka’s recent
disavowal of his prior statements is not credible. Vituscka now claims that he “meant to say,
‘sexually harassed’” and was referring to the allegations in Lively’s CRD Complaint and “not in
reference to any conversation I had with Leslie Sloane.” Dkt. 286-1, ¶¶ 3, 4. [b]Whatever meant to
say, his statements were not ambiguous, his explanation does not make sense and at the time their
Complaint was filed, the Wayfarer Parties had every right to rely on the statement – they were not
required to have a crystal ball to predict that Vituscka would change his story. Therefore, the
inclusion of Vituscka’s statement in the Amended Complaint was neither knowingly false nor a
function of any failure of diligence on the part of the Wayfarer Parties. The reason for the claim’s
failure was, instead, a failure to adequately plead the requisite state of fault. Id. at pp. 91, 93-94.[/b]

[/quote]

I'm the PP. Sorry, I'm not trawling through legalese and reading long copy and paste statements. You can try rewriting this in a normal way, or maybe someone else can attempt to explain what you mean.[/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