Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman has ruled denying Wallace and Katie Case's motions for continued sealing with regard to client lists. So we'll eventually get some confirmation of some of the names that have been speculated. Fun!

I am very excited about this. Getting so see Jed Wallace's client list (and potentially ruining Jed Wallace's entire "career" of destroying reputations online for a fee) could be one of the best possible outcomes to this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

I would be pissed too. What I wouldn’t do is run to the New York Times and get involved in a two-year lawsuit that cost me $50 million and tanks my reputation in the industry, and you wouldn’t either.

Anyone pretending lively is not absolutely insane at this point is just not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse.

Justin and Jamie sound difficult to work with, but it was absolutely not worth all of this. At this point, people are just doubling down.

I mean, that's not what happened. She complained multiple times about a bunch of behavior, most of which I think is pretty bad. And then they hired Johnny Depp's crisis team who took down Amber Heard and The Shadiest Man In The World, Jed Wallace, to sway public opinion against Lively right as their movie opened. And Lively became aware of text messages saying exactly that via Taylor Swift's publicist friend, thanks to Jen Abel's hamfisted effort to steal clients and files from her employer (NOT because Lively was in some secret cabal with Stephanie Jones). Based on all that, it doesn't strike me as weird or "insane" that she chose to file a lawsuit and then discussed her lawsuit with the NYT.

And now multiple women, including other actresses on this film, a director who worked with Wayfarer previously, a producer Justin hired for the film, and Justin's own co-host from his podcast, have either come forward with their own complaints about Justin or backed Lively. Why is it insane for Lively to pursue this case? I agree it's ultimately harmed her rep but I also think that's unfair and has a lot to do with Bryan Freedman's "trial by misleading publicity" campaign. I think Freedman is the devil incarnate at this point and really question why he was hired if Wayfarer is so innocent. His whole strategy has been to perpetuate the smear campaign Wayfarer started in August 2024 in the hopes he can humiliate Lively into settling ir dropping the case. Seems bad?

I would never have pursued this lawsuit, but that's because I'm a lawyer and I know this is what often happens in litigation. My experience as a litigator has turned me into the kind of person who suggest mediation or just lets even really awful things go because I don't want to pay lawyers thousands of dollars so I can be abused and investigated by the person who harmed me. Because I've seen it up close and it sucks.

But maybe by pursuing this case, Lively can make a difference not only for herself but for other victims of publicity smear campaigns. I really think she's seeking justice for everyone who just gets trashed online by aholes like Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace, and makes it harder for the bottom dwellers who do that work, and the sketchy unaccountable deep pockets who pay for it, to think twice before they decide "her we have a personnel dispute with this woman who makes a living off her name and celebrity, less bury her in online $hit until she has nothing left, cool?"

I see Lively as a villain. She was called a bully for her Kate Middleton posts and she apologized b/c Kate is A list. Lively could’ve minimized some of the fallout around the premiere had she apologized to the “little bump” journalist, just like Anne Hathaway did, and just like Sony said she should. But she didn’t b/c she’s elitist and chose to play the victim instead. She comes off as a horrible person.

Anonymous wrote:Liman has ruled denying Wallace and Katie Case's motions for continued sealing with regard to client lists. So we'll eventually get some confirmation of some of the names that have been speculated. Fun!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

I would be pissed too. What I wouldn’t do is run to the New York Times and get involved in a two-year lawsuit that cost me $50 million and tanks my reputation in the industry, and you wouldn’t either.

Anyone pretending lively is not absolutely insane at this point is just not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse.

Justin and Jamie sound difficult to work with, but it was absolutely not worth all of this. At this point, people are just doubling down.

I mean, that's not what happened. She complained multiple times about a bunch of behavior, most of which I think is pretty bad. And then they hired Johnny Depp's crisis team who took down Amber Heard and The Shadiest Man In The World, Jed Wallace, to sway public opinion against Lively right as their movie opened. And Lively became aware of text messages saying exactly that via Taylor Swift's publicist friend, thanks to Jen Abel's hamfisted effort to steal clients and files from her employer (NOT because Lively was in some secret cabal with Stephanie Jones). Based on all that, it doesn't strike me as weird or "insane" that she chose to file a lawsuit and then discussed her lawsuit with the NYT.

And now multiple women, including other actresses on this film, a director who worked with Wayfarer previously, a producer Justin hired for the film, and Justin's own co-host from his podcast, have either come forward with their own complaints about Justin or backed Lively. Why is it insane for Lively to pursue this case? I agree it's ultimately harmed her rep but I also think that's unfair and has a lot to do with Bryan Freedman's "trial by misleading publicity" campaign. I think Freedman is the devil incarnate at this point and really question why he was hired if Wayfarer is so innocent. His whole strategy has been to perpetuate the smear campaign Wayfarer started in August 2024 in the hopes he can humiliate Lively into settling ir dropping the case. Seems bad?

I would never have pursued this lawsuit, but that's because I'm a lawyer and I know this is what often happens in litigation. My experience as a litigator has turned me into the kind of person who suggest mediation or just lets even really awful things go because I don't want to pay lawyers thousands of dollars so I can be abused and investigated by the person who harmed me. Because I've seen it up close and it sucks.

But maybe by pursuing this case, Lively can make a difference not only for herself but for other victims of publicity smear campaigns. I really think she's seeking justice for everyone who just gets trashed online by aholes like Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace, and makes it harder for the bottom dwellers who do that work, and the sketchy unaccountable deep pockets who pay for it, to think twice before they decide "her we have a personnel dispute with this woman who makes a living off her name and celebrity, less bury her in online $hit until she has nothing left, cool?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

I would be pissed too. What I wouldn’t do is run to the New York Times and get involved in a two-year lawsuit that cost me $50 million and tanks my reputation in the industry, and you wouldn’t either.

Anyone pretending lively is not absolutely insane at this point is just not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse.

Justin and Jamie sound difficult to work with, but it was absolutely not worth all of this. At this point, people are just doubling down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They wouldn't, that PP is an idiot. It would be conceding half of Blake's case.

You’re both idiots. Wayfarer does not want or need to relitigate the SH claims. And acknowledging that Blake made a complaint does not concede that the underlying claims had merit.

This aged well. Wayfarer just stipulated to the fact that Lively engaged in protected activity. Idiots

Dp but you are the idiot. First, this poster correctly predicted that Wf would opt not to relate the sexual harassment. The judge specifically gave them the option to do so to streamline the trial. It is not an admission of any type, it is a stipulation only for purposes of simplifying what will be tried. It means that they believe they can easily win on retaliation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They wouldn't, that PP is an idiot. It would be conceding half of Blake's case.

You’re both idiots. Wayfarer does not want or need to relitigate the SH claims. And acknowledging that Blake made a complaint does not concede that the underlying claims had merit.

This aged well. Wayfarer just stipulated to the fact that Lively engaged in protected activity. Idiots

If anyone can explain this to the Non lawyers. Is this because if they both agree, then it keeps the lively team from being the SH claims up in trial or something to that effect? It seemed like there were advantages and disadvantages to either decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They wouldn't, that PP is an idiot. It would be conceding half of Blake's case.

You’re both idiots. Wayfarer does not want or need to relitigate the SH claims. And acknowledging that Blake made a complaint does not concede that the underlying claims had merit.

This aged well. Wayfarer just stipulated to the fact that Lively engaged in protected activity. Idiots

If anyone can explain this to the Non lawyers. Is this because if they both agree, then it keeps the lively team from being the SH claims up in trial or something to that effect? It seemed like there were advantages and disadvantages to either decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They wouldn't, that PP is an idiot. It would be conceding half of Blake's case.

You’re both idiots. Wayfarer does not want or need to relitigate the SH claims. And acknowledging that Blake made a complaint does not concede that the underlying claims had merit.

This aged well. Wayfarer just stipulated to the fact that Lively engaged in protected activity. Idiots