Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake is now desperately fighting for the application of CA law. They should have filed case in California state court.

What was the original plan for BL team for why wanted NY law/courts? Is NY law more favorable for SH?

Anonymous wrote:Blake is now desperately fighting for the application of CA law. They should have filed case in California state court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Popcorn Planet is a snooze, let's talk about how Blake is so awful that a female AD got fired because of her.

Just to set the record straight she got 2 female ADs fired. They were both named in the latest dump. One is Julie Bloom and The Other his first name Alex. It’s a little confusing because Alex Sak is also producer who’s involved from the Sony side but the second AD was definitely named Alex.

And I’m going to remind everyone Blake was literally on set for a handful of days. A good half of this movie is focusing on the young cast and she was not there for that part of the shoot. I believe people have named the number of days that she’s on and it’s absurd, something like 14 days on set and she managed to get two people fired.

Anonymous wrote:Popcorn Planet is a snooze, let's talk about how Blake is so awful that a female AD got fired because of her.

Anonymous wrote:The docket is lighting up tonight with unsealing. Jed's depo... *chef's kiss*
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1043.1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Popcorn Plant ruling is a big yawn for the main lawsuit because its communications after the lawsuit was filed. It’s bad for the sources for his documentary, beyond the defendants, as it opens them up for retribution.

I actually don't understand why he has to turn those sources over, although it appears from the ruling he does. The subpoena from Lively is here (last two pages): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291.2.1.pdf

I'm reading it as the only communications required with non-WF parties are those related to agreements concerning the case. The other broader requests (all communications concerning Lively, IEWU, etc) seem to be for items "in connection with" or directly with the WF parties.

Popcorn Planet had claimed that he went to imdb and used that list to contact cast and crew for their statements on the film. As much as I dislike him, that appears to be proper journalism and not really relevant to Lively's claims of WF's retaliation. On his log, he has logged these emails and no WF people are copied: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291/gov.uscourts.flmd.445291.34.1.pdf

For the communication with the defendant, I still think WF did a disservice by not trying to get at least those post-litigation retaliation and defamation claims tossed before discovery, rather than on MJOP. The "WF defamed Lively because their lawyer said her allegations aren't true" is really tortured and a bad argument, so bad that I believe even Liman would have had to dismiss and they would not be able to effectively fix them if given a chance to amend. And then she would not have been able to request all this stuff form 2025.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Popcorn Plant ruling is a big yawn for the main lawsuit because its communications after the lawsuit was filed. It’s bad for the sources for his documentary, beyond the defendants, as it opens them up for retribution.

Depends entirely on what is in the communications. It might be a total nothing burger, but there might be damning stuff in there. We will see.

I follow pop culture and celebrity gossip pretty closely and I’ve never heard of this guy. Maybe he has a bigger YouTube following but on insta he has 31,000 followers which is basically nothing.

It was similarly really odd they were going after Perez Hilton and Megan Kelly - not at all popular among the demographic that Blake wants to retain her reputation with, folks who might buy her hair products or see her movies. Maybe 20 years ago Perez had this demographic but not anymore. If this is who they think was ruining Blake’s reputation and costing them tens of millions of dollars… It just seems like a really weak argument.

It seems like they looked at the landscape and saw that there was no there there for anyone who actually might influence public opinion so they picked on little guys to generate headlines. If Perez had a lawyer, I am betting a ACLU wouldn’t have stepped in, but because he was representing himself and generating headlines that way, as soon as they did step in to defend independent journalists, Blake‘s team dropped going after Perez within the hour. it’s pretty clear their strategy and it’s pretty clear how weak it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Popcorn Plant ruling is a big yawn for the main lawsuit because its communications after the lawsuit was filed. It’s bad for the sources for his documentary, beyond the defendants, as it opens them up for retribution.

Depends entirely on what is in the communications. It might be a total nothing burger, but there might be damning stuff in there. We will see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Popcorn Planet is a snooze, let's talk about how Blake is so awful that a female AD got fired because of her.

Please feel free to share any new or interesting details to get the discussion going.

Anonymous wrote:Popcorn Planet is a snooze, let's talk about how Blake is so awful that a female AD got fired because of her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Popcorn Plant ruling is a big yawn for the main lawsuit because its communications after the lawsuit was filed. It’s bad for the sources for his documentary, beyond the defendants, as it opens them up for retribution.

Depends entirely on what is in the communications. It might be a total nothing burger, but there might be damning stuff in there. We will see.