Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so. [/quote]

This is clearly the best reasoned of all the discussions about viability of the parties claims, and it's not even close.  I am probably the most pro-Lively of all the people on here, but I do totally agree with you that she may not win on her SH claims at trial, it will depend on the jury.  I also agree with you (and with Baldoni's PR reps) that Lively believes Baldoni sexually harassed her and wasn't generally making claims up.  I will be more clear -- *I* believe Baldoni did these things and in my own eyes that amounts to sexual harassment, as well as retaliation.  But I agree that a fair jury could decide otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Baldoners above are saying re Lively's SH and retaliation claims -- I think they are saying that they will survive summary judgement but that the SH claims can't possibly win at trial.  If they are saying those claims can't survive SJ (not "enough evidence for [a reasonable] jury to find for Lively on SH" is the SJ standard after all), I definitely disagree with that.  I also disagree with Baldoners that no jury could find Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (though agree it's possible that a reasonable jury could find he did not).

I think your analysis of the deficiencies in Baldoni's claims is spot on, and besides the NYT and Sloane, I also agree with you on Baldoni's extortion and conspiracy claims, which nobody else even mentioned.

The KatOrtega lawyer poster from reddit noted that Liman has previously, in complicated, multi-party and multi-claim cases like this, filled out a sort of spreadsheet listing every party and every claim and going through them with checks to see which claims filed against which parties were surviving the MTD and which were not.  As that poster has posited, I think it's possible that Judge Liman will come up with something similar here, and that it may take him several months to do so, especially given the length and complexity of the current complaints, the COL issues, and the current absolute shambles state of Baldoni's complaint and/or Exhibit A (will Liman's clerk even consider that in evaluating evidence?  It flouts the federal rules, so it seems to me s/he should not.).

Anyway, thanks for this post.   [/quote]

I really don’t know why the two of you feel the need to post some form of this every single day.[/quote]

Dude. It’s not two separate people. They’re clearly either coordinated or the same person. She probably switches devices or it’s coordinated posters. Note whenever she gets called on it, she wants us to run to Jeff to check. She’s so obvious and loves to write long posts agreeing with herself/her twin poster.

[/quote]

Conspiracies, delusion, paranoia, and an inability to accept reality.  Apparently that's your team, guys.  Real lawyers and everything, and this is the nonsense you're putting out there.  Pouring one out for you.[/quote]

What team? [/quote]

That describes both teams.[/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