Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t had a chance to review the motions yet , but the video of Blake siting on the floor, explaining to no one in particular what exactly makes her hideous sequined boots so “sexy” is pure gold.

Where can I see the video? I thought it was all pdfs.

I have barely begun reading what WF posted, it will be fun reading through the weekend (but so many redactions...). I could have sworn Lively's attorneys had said they definitely intended to file MSJ. Everyone thought it was odd, because she's the plaintiff, but I thought they actually said that to Liman in a hearing. Now I wonder if that was why unsealed that exhibit yesterday (posted earlier on this page, their outline of what TAG did), so they at least had something for PR to counter all the exhibits WF is putting out.

There is one filing of video clips. Not sure of the docket number.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t had a chance to review the motions yet , but the video of Blake siting on the floor, explaining to no one in particular what exactly makes her hideous sequined boots so “sexy” is pure gold.

Where can I see the video? I thought it was all pdfs.

I have barely begun reading what WF posted, it will be fun reading through the weekend (but so many redactions...). I could have sworn Lively's attorneys had said they definitely intended to file MSJ. Everyone thought it was odd, because she's the plaintiff, but I thought they actually said that to Liman in a hearing. Now I wonder if that was why unsealed that exhibit yesterday (posted earlier on this page, their outline of what TAG did), so they at least had something for PR to counter all the exhibits WF is putting out.

Anonymous wrote:WF filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of sexual harassment. It’s a huge filing so I am linking to a Reddit post which summarizes the filings, albeit in a manner very favorable to WF. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/8xrF8jWhzn

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t had a chance to review the motions yet , but the video of Blake siting on the floor, explaining to no one in particular what exactly makes her hideous sequined boots so “sexy” is pure gold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Most of it is boosting, where someone sends a link, says to boost it, and someone flags to Jed. There's a couple that describe narratives they asked the press to write, and one text where Katie Case says "the comments are us lol." Then they mix it in with more benign stuff like Justin boosting things that make him look good, to pad it out. It's not a huge bombshell but it's not nothing and it's pretty clear they weren't flagging Jed to monitor stuff they already found. But enough to convince a jury, I don't know.

I only skimmed but this seems like a pretty accurate summary. TBH, including all the stuff that is clearly just Justin and his team boosting positive stories about him or trying to sell a narrative that all was well on set (or just part of the creative process) makes it feel like it's no big deal. I wish they'd strip all that stuff out and just list the places where they have evidence of Abel, TAG, or Jed boosting negative stories about Blake, claiming credit for negative comments about her, etc. If it was just this, it would be easier to evaluate if it feels like enough to convince a jury.

I do think they are really hurting for all the Signal chat stuff here. It's tough when they have texts where someone identifies something online and says "we'll flag to Jed" and then... we don't know what happened. To me this is a big unanswered question. I don't buy what Jed is saying about "just monitoring" -- it doesn't make sense based on how his services were described internally by TAG or Wayfarer, and doesn't make sense with the text info we have about his work. But that doesn't mean he was doing what Lively was alleging.

It's frustrating to have that gap and not be able to assess for myself if whatever Jed did was okay or not. I also would love to know what he did just as a consumer of information online -- I feel like it might provide some insight that could help me be a smarter consumer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Most of it is boosting, where someone sends a link, says to boost it, and someone flags to Jed. There's a couple that describe narratives they asked the press to write, and one text where Katie Case says "the comments are us lol." Then they mix it in with more benign stuff like Justin boosting things that make him look good, to pad it out. It's not a huge bombshell but it's not nothing and it's pretty clear they weren't flagging Jed to monitor stuff they already found. But enough to convince a jury, I don't know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf

Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?

Anonymous wrote:Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf