Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 15:29     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Blake will not settle. She has nothing to lose by proceeding because while public sentiment is against her, industry sentiment continues to support her. If she can ride it out until trial and then convince people she had a legitimate reason to sue, that's the best case scenario for her.

Settling now locks in the public perception that she is in the wrong. She doesn't believe she's in the wrong, so she's not going to do that.

Also, while people here are dismissive of it, Blake is in a good position legally right now, even if the PR game is not cutting her way. She has the upper hand with discovery right now, and in his motion to strike, Judge Liman indicated a heightened level of frustration with Freedman that may spill over into additional matters. Liman also showed very limited patience with Freedman straying from the claims already outlined in the complaints, indicating that Freedman is not going to have a long leash within the litigation to bring embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant info.

I agree Blake is fighting for her life on the PR front, but when you look at the whole picture, that's all the more reason why settling right now doesn't make sense. Her best bet is to double down on her Hollywood support, keep fighting legally, and hope that if both those things continue to break her way, public sentiment will shift.


I agree with this. I think settling before the MTDs are decided would be crazy. After that, it depends on what they’re finding from discovery, I guess.


Settling before the MTD is her best chance to settle before this gets crazy expensive. She could settle now for 7 figures. After she loses the MTD? That number is going to jump
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 15:27     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Blake will not settle. She has nothing to lose by proceeding because while public sentiment is against her, industry sentiment continues to support her. If she can ride it out until trial and then convince people she had a legitimate reason to sue, that's the best case scenario for her.

Settling now locks in the public perception that she is in the wrong. She doesn't believe she's in the wrong, so she's not going to do that.

Also, while people here are dismissive of it, Blake is in a good position legally right now, even if the PR game is not cutting her way. She has the upper hand with discovery right now, and in his motion to strike, Judge Liman indicated a heightened level of frustration with Freedman that may spill over into additional matters. Liman also showed very limited patience with Freedman straying from the claims already outlined in the complaints, indicating that Freedman is not going to have a long leash within the litigation to bring embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant info.

I agree Blake is fighting for her life on the PR front, but when you look at the whole picture, that's all the more reason why settling right now doesn't make sense. Her best bet is to double down on her Hollywood support, keep fighting legally, and hope that if both those things continue to break her way, public sentiment will shift.


This is a major stretch. She is not in a good position legally right now. Her original claims look like a sham, the defamation claims against her look decent, and a trial loss would be devastating, as well as long winded and painful, and likely more expensive.

The discovery stuff is nothing. There are no big ‘wins’ on her side, and Liman is probably annoyed at the entire case being so heated and public, but that’s got very little to do with the ultimate claims. He kicked the discovery letter issue to DC and freeman/Baldoni very VERY much won by making it clear why he needed the subpoena (people were arguing over him subpoening Taylor’s law firm and he made a huge splash explaining why and went to the mat on it with his affidavit). Limans chastising the letter meant very little and it also gives him yet another opportunity to see how Blake’s side plays dirty. I highly doubt the judge has a favorite of either side, and whatever that could be won’t change much.

Baldoni is killing it here. Blake is an idiot not to try to resolve this. A jury could be extremely extremely generous to him
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 15:19     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
What Livrly supporters don’t quite get is that Blake’s reputation is toast. Yesterday was devastating for her and her case. Even if she wins down the road, all trust in her has disappeared. So many red flags were there from the beginning.

Baldoni will actually be okay, or better than okay. Everyone sees exactly who Blake is and will give him another shot, more projects and work going forward. If he loses the case, I wouldn’t blame it on him having a weak case, but instead point to power and influence winning the day, as it often does.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 15:14     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
I’m kind of surprised that the judge decided the discovery issues concerning Baldoni’s damages documents before Blake’s MTD. Because if Blake were to have the success on that motion that at least one of her supporters is predicting, there would be no need for such documents to be exchanged.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 15:14     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Yeah, Blake stands only to lose by settling, and it’s also just not her personality type. If she wins in court, no matter how small the victory, we will never hear the insufferable end of it from those two. But maybe some good will come of it in that it could reshape the law to make aspects of these cases more clear.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:58     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Blake will not settle. She has nothing to lose by proceeding because while public sentiment is against her, industry sentiment continues to support her. If she can ride it out until trial and then convince people she had a legitimate reason to sue, that's the best case scenario for her.

Settling now locks in the public perception that she is in the wrong. She doesn't believe she's in the wrong, so she's not going to do that.

Also, while people here are dismissive of it, Blake is in a good position legally right now, even if the PR game is not cutting her way. She has the upper hand with discovery right now, and in his motion to strike, Judge Liman indicated a heightened level of frustration with Freedman that may spill over into additional matters. Liman also showed very limited patience with Freedman straying from the claims already outlined in the complaints, indicating that Freedman is not going to have a long leash within the litigation to bring embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant info.

I agree Blake is fighting for her life on the PR front, but when you look at the whole picture, that's all the more reason why settling right now doesn't make sense. Her best bet is to double down on her Hollywood support, keep fighting legally, and hope that if both those things continue to break her way, public sentiment will shift.


I agree with this. I think settling before the MTDs are decided would be crazy. After that, it depends on what they’re finding from discovery, I guess.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:51     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Just found this. Interesting:

https://www.realitytea.com/2025/05/16/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-relationship-break-private-chat-leak-blake-lively/


I don’t understand this. As fascinating as it would be to read Taylor’s texts with her inner circle, just because she is in a lawsuit does not mean we get every text about Travis, which has nothing to do with this case.

I assume anything that would come out would be directly involving this case - why would the public be privy to texts about other topics?


Particularly since Lively's lawyers got the judge to agree to their AEO rule which ensure that any of Taylor's communications that came up in discovery would be kept confidential in court, which is an extra layer of protection regarding any irrelevant texts that could potentially be embarrassing for her.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:49     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Huh, another day, another failure of Venable to moot their motion to quash their subpoena, which Freedman promised would be forthcoming. Odd.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70245807/venable-llp-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:39     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Just found this. Interesting:

https://www.realitytea.com/2025/05/16/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-relationship-break-private-chat-leak-blake-lively/


I don’t understand this. As fascinating as it would be to read Taylor’s texts with her inner circle, just because she is in a lawsuit does not mean we get every text about Travis, which has nothing to do with this case.

I assume anything that would come out would be directly involving this case - why would the public be privy to texts about other topics?
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:36     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Blake will not settle. She has nothing to lose by proceeding because while public sentiment is against her, industry sentiment continues to support her. If she can ride it out until trial and then convince people she had a legitimate reason to sue, that's the best case scenario for her.

Settling now locks in the public perception that she is in the wrong. She doesn't believe she's in the wrong, so she's not going to do that.

Also, while people here are dismissive of it, Blake is in a good position legally right now, even if the PR game is not cutting her way. She has the upper hand with discovery right now, and in his motion to strike, Judge Liman indicated a heightened level of frustration with Freedman that may spill over into additional matters. Liman also showed very limited patience with Freedman straying from the claims already outlined in the complaints, indicating that Freedman is not going to have a long leash within the litigation to bring embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant info.

I agree Blake is fighting for her life on the PR front, but when you look at the whole picture, that's all the more reason why settling right now doesn't make sense. Her best bet is to double down on her Hollywood support, keep fighting legally, and hope that if both those things continue to break her way, public sentiment will shift.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:23     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.


What MTD?


Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.


Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.


I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).


Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.


Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.


Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal


I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”


Well, they’re right.


And frankly, the short game. It was a very bad week for Blake on the pr front.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:22     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.


What MTD?


Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.


Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.


I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).


Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.


Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.


Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal


I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”


Well, they’re right.


And frankly, the short game. It was a very bad week for Blake on the pr front.


Agree. And people who keep saying Baldoni/freedman ‘got spanked’ are delusional and spinning. Baldoni has won, this was another nail in the coffin and BL should settle this as soon as she can. I understand she wants to try to get some little procedural ‘wins’ in so it looks like she has some leverage (‘oh the protective order was closer to what she wanted! ‘Oh the judge wrote Freedman a snippy response and kicked it to Dc!’). But that’s all piddly stuff.

My question is what happens to the NYT if Blake settles…

No word from the journalist, right?

Btw I heard freedman’s source was Taylor’s lawyer. HE used the term extort.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:03     Subject: Re:Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:I also feel like their PR people are failing them miserably. They are working from a playbook from over a decade ago. Leslie Sloan just needs to hang it up if she is still involved.

I don’t think there’s a universe where they come out looking great during all this, obviously, it’s a crisis and they are in a rough spot (entirely of their own making, but still), but they’ve definitely had a number of missteps that could’ve been avoided.


Of course the PR is worthless. The public isn't moving off their position. Blake and Ryan were busted red-handed setting this man up and trying to ruin him off a bogus smear. It's over. PR hacks are just bleeding both sides, same for all the lawyers, same for the tabloids eager to take the money. Just stalling the inevitable: Blake and Ryan will have to wire a big stack of money.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 14:00     Subject: Re:Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
The public has already made up their minds. The public have deemed Blake, Ryan, and also Ari to be ruthless sociopaths who will say, do, and ruin anyone for power, fame and fortune. This inside baseball PR battle is largely pointless. Grifters are just milking both sides. Baldoni has already won, Blake and Ryan have lost. Frankly, the only debate is how large the number is Blake and Ryan will be ordered to cough up. And I suppose it's going to be entertaining to see how quickly Ryan cuts bait with Blake. Maybe via text. Maybe he'll come out as gay/bi. Whatever happens it's sure to be entertaining and desperate. I don't see him riding her sinking ship to the ocean floor when he only has maybe five years max of film profitability himself.
Anonymous
Post 05/16/2025 13:53     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.


What MTD?


Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.


Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.


I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).


Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.


Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.


Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal


I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”


Well, they’re right.


And frankly, the short game. It was a very bad week for Blake on the pr front.