Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

Hair and makeup people also have to appear on set on a certain schedule but are often independent contractors. I don’t think the existence of a schedule means much.

It's central to the case law.

Remember this is not to decide if Lively is an independent contractor for purposes of tax law. It's just to see if she can be *treated* as an employee for purposes of sexual harassment law.

Central to the case law, please provide a few citations then.

Anonymous wrote:A few pages back someone was claiming that Colleen Hoover never wanted Justin Baldoni to play Ryle and that it was a decision that was sprung on her. Huh?

This is an email she sent Justin in 2019:

"Have you given any thought to whether you would want an acting role in this? Say, maybe, Ryle? I could see it."

Anonymous wrote:I think the giant document dump is confusing people. People are reading things that Blake, Justin, and others said in texts and emails that are coming out now in the unsealing, and conflating that with arguments being made in court. They are the same thing.

Blake told friends in private texts/emails that she "basically" had to direct the movie because she felt Justin was so incompetent. But that is not the argument she's making in legal filings. At no point in any of her filings is she contending that, actually, she directed the movie. It's just something she said to friends. Now, depending on whose side you're on here, you might view those claims as either (1) evidence that Blake had a lot of power on the movie and therefore was not an employee and also could not have been harassed, OR (2) evidence that Justin was so incompetent that Blake felt she had no choice but to take over.

But it's actually not good evidence of either. People say all kinds of stuff in communications with friends. None of these were formal work communications. I tend to think the texts with Taylor and Matt Damon, the email to Affleck, etc., as fun as they are to discuss, will have little to no bearing on the case. Most likely won't even be brought in at trial, and those that are will mostly be brought just to show something like "state of mind" not to establish Blake's employment status.

The PGA letter is obviously different, that's actual evidence of Blake's position within the film. But that one actually makes me laugh because it puts both sides in a bind.

The pro-Lively folks want to argue that (1) Justin was incompetent and Blake had no choice but to take over the movie, making the PGA letter truthful and her PGA credit merited, AND (2) that Blake was just an employee of the movie and Justin/Jamey were very powerful and harassed her. See how that's hard to argue?

But the pro-Baldoni folks wind up in a similar bind because they want the opposite. They want to argue that (1) Blake didn't deserve he PGA credit and didn't actually do the stuff she claims to have done in the PGA letter and was not as instrumental in the making of the movie as she claims, AND (2) that she was too powerful and had too much control over the set to have been harassed by Justin and Jamey.

It's just funny. Everyone sucks here, and everyone is a hypocrite!

Anonymous wrote:My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

Anonymous wrote:How did BL file her 24 taxes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take on today's hearing:

I think Wayfarer did a decent job with both their written motion and arguments today. I am not sure where Liman is going to land on the California law issue, really could go either way and I don't think he tipped his hand (I think it's likely he hasn't actually decided).

On the issue of whether Lively is an employee for purposes of her claims, I don't think Liman is going to go for. Wayfarer definitely has some strong arguments in their favor, including that PGA letter and the temporary nature of Lively's work. However ultimately this issue generally comes down to who controls the "how" and the "where" of employment. Yes, Lively was able to influence the production to move to New Jersey to accommodate her (which Liman made a point of acknowledging -- most employees don't have that kind of leverage). But in the day-to-day work of the movie, Lively had to adhere to a shooting schedule created by Wayfarer, report to hair and makeup at a certain time, film the scenes in the order determined by Wayfarer, etc. She couldn't show up to set on a Tuesday and say "you know what, I don't want to shoot this scene on the street with Brandon today, I want to shoot an interior scene with Jenny instead." Even with as much power as she had on the production, she was still ultimately an employee of IEWU during the filming of the movie. There's quite a bit of case law on this and I think based on the discussion today, Lively's going to stay alive on this one.

As for the rest of the SJ motion, Wayfarer gets stuck on the same problem they've had from the start -- because it's all subjective, and because the standard for determingin what is SH and what isn't SH is subjective, it's mostly an issue of fact for the jury. Liman could think Lively is totally wrong on all her SH claims and it doesn't matter if there's any chance a jury would disagree with him on that.

I do actually think he's going to dismiss the defamation claims, even though it's obvious he freaking hates Freedman. The claims are weak especially due the timing of what they are alleging. Plus because I think he's going to rule against Wayfarer on the independent contractor issue, he'll feel compelled to balance it with this ruling (I know in theory it shouldn't work like that but especially in a high profile case, I think judges can't help it -- maintaining the appearance of impartiality is important to them).

My two cents. Could wind up totally wrong! Might come revisit this post later after Liman rules to see how I did.

Hair and makeup people also have to appear on set on a certain schedule but are often independent contractors. I don’t think the existence of a schedule means much.

It's central to the case law.

Remember this is not to decide if Lively is an independent contractor for purposes of tax law. It's just to see if she can be *treated* as an employee for purposes of sexual harassment law.

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys discussed the fact that Blake called herself Brandon's pimp and told him she wanted him to work the corner? Rules for thee, not for me!

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought Swift would take her back in her heartbeat if she wins the case. But who knows anymore, my first impressions were completely wrong. I thought Swift was mad when the "dragons" text was leaked because Lively was throwing her name around, and it's pretty much the opposite of that. I believed Swift when she said she really wasn't involved.

Anonymous wrote:The way Blake and the pro-BL users here talk about Justin is so unlike the way I've ever seen someone talk about a true predator, and I don't think you guys realize your own language is betraying you lmao.

Like apparently JB was a s*x pest, but he's also an ineffectual loser of a leader. Make it make sense!

Anonymous wrote:A few pages back someone was claiming that Colleen Hoover never wanted Justin Baldoni to play Ryle and that it was a decision that was sprung on her. Huh?

This is an email she sent Justin in 2019:

"Have you given any thought to whether you would want an acting role in this? Say, maybe, Ryle? I could see it."