Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has amber tamblyn spoke out? Liz plank? Brandon or Jenny or Colleen?

I’ll be watching in the coming days. That would be more significant to me than WME .

Obviously Taylor would be huge too.

Really anyone who isn’t on her payroll would be more significant. So strange that the Blake bot doesn’t get that.

Is Paul Feig on her payroll?

Anyone who is a material witness would be advised by lawyers not to say anything publicly.

Has Feig released a statement since the ruling? Last I heard he got asked on a red carpet a couple weeks ago and gave a really awkward answer about what a great mom she is.

Name one industry source who has come out in support of Baldoni or Wayfarer since the ruling came out. One. An agency, studio, director, even other actors. One.

And that's after a legal win. No one has supported him during his losses either. Blake has had gotten and continues to get far more industry support than Justin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has amber tamblyn spoke out? Liz plank? Brandon or Jenny or Colleen?

I’ll be watching in the coming days. That would be more significant to me than WME .

Obviously Taylor would be huge too.

Really anyone who isn’t on her payroll would be more significant. So strange that the Blake bot doesn’t get that.

Is Paul Feig on her payroll?

Anyone who is a material witness would be advised by lawyers not to say anything publicly.

Has Feig released a statement since the ruling? Last I heard he got asked on a red carpet a couple weeks ago and gave a really awkward answer about what a great mom she is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has amber tamblyn spoke out? Liz plank? Brandon or Jenny or Colleen?

I’ll be watching in the coming days. That would be more significant to me than WME .

Obviously Taylor would be huge too.

Really anyone who isn’t on her payroll would be more significant. So strange that the Blake bot doesn’t get that.

Is Paul Feig on her payroll?

Anyone who is a material witness would be advised by lawyers not to say anything publicly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It speaks volumes that Blake and Ryan still have to close their comments and Justin does not. He’s gotten flooded with celebratory messages since the ruling.

Also speaks volumes that Blake cannot shut up about this case and has posted 20 unhinged stories since the judge’s ruling and Justin has said nothing.

And again no celeb friends saying anything in support of Blake.

Yes, it speaks to the fact that Baldoni supporters are insane and will dedicate their lives to harassing people they don't know in their Instagram comments, and Blake's supporters don't feel comfortable harassing even people they dislike.

WME came out with a very strong statement of support for Blake.

The agency that makes money when she or he husbands works wrote a strong statement of support, you say? Why ever would that be persuasive of anything other than they have a financial interest in Blake and Ryan?

WME doesn't just rep Blake and Ryan. They are one of a small number of agencies that rep all the A-list and most of the B-list talent in Hollywood. And not just actors - directors too. WME's support is industry support and a strong, unequivocal statement of support like that reflects more than just their personal agents backing them.

Please point to the industry support celebrating Justin's success in getting the SH claims tossed? Oh wait, there is none. Not even other prominent b'hai like Rainne Wilson are touching this.

Multiple articles since the decision came out mention Blake’s career being over or damaged but dont mention Justin’s.

You either are playing dumb or actually are dumb if you think her agency trying to do damage control is anything beyond that

Who is playing dumb here? Blake is still repped by WME, as is her husband. WME has come out with a strong statement of support for Blake since the decision this week. That is significant. WME has no obligation to do that, and if the agency felt Blake and Ryan were done, they wouldn't take such a strong public stance.

If the industry viewed Blake and Ryan the way pro-Baldoni posters do (her as an untalented liar who destroyed a director's creative work for fun, him as the maniacal puppet master directing her behind the scenes), WME would drop them and they'd be ostracized. And yet, WME is vocally supporting her, as has Paul Feig in recent weeks. While their projects are in a holding pattern due to this case, they haven't been cancelled. They recently attended a Broadway fundraiser where they were treated with kindness by other celebs and industry people.

Meanwhile, Justin and Wayfarer were dropped by WME and to my knowledge are currently unrepped (certainly not repped by any of the major agencies). Justin has zero projects in development, with anyone, anywhere. They do not interact with industry people that we've seen, even people we know Justin to have close relationships with, like Rainn Wilson (who has never publicly said anything in support of Justin, only privately supported him via text in 2024 before all of this come out).

The "multiple articles" you are citing... are they valid industry sources or are they tabloid rags? Because it's clear that Blake and Ryan still have the support of people in the industry but there's no indication that Justin has ANY supporters within mainstream Hollywood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A post from one of the content creators (Lauren Neidigh) that fought Blake’s subpoena:

Blake Lively shockingly boasts about herself on Instagram, trying to now paint herself as a champion of issues with “digital violence” and sticking up for women who don’t have a voice. This comes after Lively used the courts to terrorize dozens of women online for criticizing her court case by demanding their private location and financial data, among other things. No threats to Lively were made from the critics who came forward after she subpoenaed our information. No violence occurred. Just pure disbelief from an incredibly entitled Hollywood star who couldn’t believe people weren’t fans of her.

Lively tried to financially penalize and terrify 107 social media users across YouTube, TikTok, and X to the point that some anonymous content creators feared for their safety. All for the high crime of expressing negative opinions of her. Helpless women without the financial resources or legal knowledge to fight her were targeted for criticizing Blake Lively’s own recorded statements and actions. And the justice system offers no recourse for those of us whose privacy is threatened by wealthy elites who abuse the courts this way. Talk about digital abuse… Lively’s latest pivot is sickening.

"Helpless women"?

These are rumor mongers posing as pseudo journalists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.

There is no reason for them to agree there was protected activity which would be an admission of her remaining sh allegations . They will vigorously attack that point, and there is very good evidence available to them. And that evidence will be very embarrassing for Blake. Appreciate that you are a Baldoni supporter, but hold off on the legal analysis if you aren’t a lawyer and haven’t read the opinion.

Clearly you’re the one who should hold off on the legal analysis b/c agreeing that she engaged in protected activity is not an admission that she was harassed. It is nothing more than an admission she complained, which is pretty undisputed. Multiple lawyers have said wayfarer may go this route if this thing ever goes to court. It’s not in their interest to rehash the SH after winning those claims.

They contested it on summary judgment and will contest it at trial. Blake’s burden for retaliation includes establishing she had a reasonable belief a hostile work environment existed based on four specific allegations of sh that the Court did not throw out. In other words, The claim for sexual harassment is gone, but some of her sexual harassment allegations remain part of her retaliation claim. WF will absolutely contest this.

Again, it is obvious you did not read the opinion.

They contested it in the motion and lost. That’s why it’s still in the case. Lucky for them their lawyers aren’t getting legal strategy from dc urban moms and aren’t dumb enough to double down on a losing argument. Clearly you didn’t read the opinion.

OMG, you definitely aren’t a lawyer. Because on summary judgment, the judge will only look at the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, that’s the standard. Entirely different ball game at trial.

There are still four specific sexual harassment allegations that are part of the retaliation case (use of the word sexy, birthing scene, trailer, and porn comment). Why in the world do you think they would stipulate to them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has amber tamblyn spoke out? Liz plank? Brandon or Jenny or Colleen?

I’ll be watching in the coming days. That would be more significant to me than WME .

Obviously Taylor would be huge too.

Really anyone who isn’t on her payroll would be more significant. So strange that the Blake bot doesn’t get that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.

There is no reason for them to agree there was protected activity which would be an admission of her remaining sh allegations . They will vigorously attack that point, and there is very good evidence available to them. And that evidence will be very embarrassing for Blake. Appreciate that you are a Baldoni supporter, but hold off on the legal analysis if you aren’t a lawyer and haven’t read the opinion.

Clearly you’re the one who should hold off on the legal analysis b/c agreeing that she engaged in protected activity is not an admission that she was harassed. It is nothing more than an admission she complained, which is pretty undisputed. Multiple lawyers have said wayfarer may go this route if this thing ever goes to court. It’s not in their interest to rehash the SH after winning those claims.

They contested it on summary judgment and will contest it at trial. Blake’s burden for retaliation includes establishing she had a reasonable belief a hostile work environment existed based on four specific allegations of sh that the Court did not throw out. In other words, The claim for sexual harassment is gone, but some of her sexual harassment allegations remain part of her retaliation claim. WF will absolutely contest this.

Again, it is obvious you did not read the opinion.

They contested it in the motion and lost. That’s why it’s still in the case. Lucky for them their lawyers aren’t getting legal strategy from dc urban moms and aren’t dumb enough to double down on a losing argument. Clearly you didn’t read the opinion.

Anonymous wrote:A post from one of the content creators (Lauren Neidigh) that fought Blake’s subpoena:

Blake Lively shockingly boasts about herself on Instagram, trying to now paint herself as a champion of issues with “digital violence” and sticking up for women who don’t have a voice. This comes after Lively used the courts to terrorize dozens of women online for criticizing her court case by demanding their private location and financial data, among other things. No threats to Lively were made from the critics who came forward after she subpoenaed our information. No violence occurred. Just pure disbelief from an incredibly entitled Hollywood star who couldn’t believe people weren’t fans of her.

Lively tried to financially penalize and terrify 107 social media users across YouTube, TikTok, and X to the point that some anonymous content creators feared for their safety. All for the high crime of expressing negative opinions of her. Helpless women without the financial resources or legal knowledge to fight her were targeted for criticizing Blake Lively’s own recorded statements and actions. And the justice system offers no recourse for those of us whose privacy is threatened by wealthy elites who abuse the courts this way. Talk about digital abuse… Lively’s latest pivot is sickening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.

There is no reason for them to agree there was protected activity which would be an admission of her remaining sh allegations . They will vigorously attack that point, and there is very good evidence available to them. And that evidence will be very embarrassing for Blake. Appreciate that you are a Baldoni supporter, but hold off on the legal analysis if you aren’t a lawyer and haven’t read the opinion.

Clearly you’re the one who should hold off on the legal analysis b/c agreeing that she engaged in protected activity is not an admission that she was harassed. It is nothing more than an admission she complained, which is pretty undisputed. Multiple lawyers have said wayfarer may go this route if this thing ever goes to court. It’s not in their interest to rehash the SH after winning those claims.

They contested it on summary judgment and will contest it at trial. Blake’s burden for retaliation includes establishing she had a reasonable belief a hostile work environment existed based on four specific allegations of sh that the Court did not throw out. In other words, The claim for sexual harassment is gone, but some of her sexual harassment allegations remain part of her retaliation claim. WF will absolutely contest this.

Again, it is obvious you did not read the opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.

There is no reason for them to agree there was protected activity which would be an admission of her remaining sh allegations . They will vigorously attack that point, and there is very good evidence available to them. And that evidence will be very embarrassing for Blake. Appreciate that you are a Baldoni supporter, but hold off on the legal analysis if you aren’t a lawyer and haven’t read the opinion.

Clearly you’re the one who should hold off on the legal analysis b/c agreeing that she engaged in protected activity is not an admission that she was harassed. It is nothing more than an admission she complained, which is pretty undisputed. Multiple lawyers have said wayfarer may go this route if this thing ever goes to court. It’s not in their interest to rehash the SH after winning those claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.

There is no reason for them to agree there was protected activity which would be an admission of her remaining sh allegations . They will vigorously attack that point, and there is very good evidence available to them. And that evidence will be very embarrassing for Blake. Appreciate that you are a Baldoni supporter, but hold off on the legal analysis if you aren’t a lawyer and haven’t read the opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations. He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented. Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question. Same with the trailer allegations.

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.

Anonymous wrote:Has amber tamblyn spoke out? Liz plank? Brandon or Jenny or Colleen?

I’ll be watching in the coming days. That would be more significant to me than WME .

Obviously Taylor would be huge too.