Jump to content

The Blake Lively (Ryan Reynolds's wife) Controversy


chainsaw

Recommended Posts

Someone needs to be beaten on and bloodied, by legal process and legal fees, for a lengthy period of time, before they’ll see the reasonableness of a settlement.
Not enough bloodletting yet - just getting warmed up.

This.
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve advised a client that yes, we all know what this case should settle for and how it should be resolved…but we aren’t going to get there until the other side has been sufficiently bloodied so that they see the light.
“Why won’t they just be reasonable?”
“Well…because they are unreasonable people.” Unreasonable people usually come around, eventually…once they’ve felt sufficient pain.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

They haven’t got to discovery (at least I don’t think so) in any of the lawsuits. Pretty sure it’s just been pleadings and leaks to the press. Official document requests, subpoenas to third parties, depositions, etc is when parties explore the proof the other side has for their claims and regardless how strong you may feel, it’s too early to predict a win for anyone 

Well, Blake Lively has informed the court that she doesn't want Baldoni's lawyer deposing her: https://people.com/blake-lively-doesnt-want-justin-baldoni-attorney-bryan-freedman-to-take-her-deposition-8783933  

I mentioned up thread that I am amazed at the shitty lawyering and lack of client control on her side. Add this to the pile. 

And there is no fucking way this settles before things get worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

386. Through their express written words, the Times offered the Wayfarer Parties until
noon (EST) the next day to respond to the allegations, provide additional relevant information, and
correct inaccuracies.

387. The Wayfarer Parties accepted the Times’ offer, which created an implied-in-fact
contract between the parties whereby the Times would refrain from publication for a brief period
in exchange for a substantive response to the allegations, additional relevant information, and
confirmation of the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of the relied-upon communications.

388. The Wayfarer Parties performed in accordance with this mutual understanding.

389. The Times breached the implied-in-fact contract by publishing the Article at 10:11
a.m. (EST), in direct violation of their express representation to the Wayfarer Parties.

390. As a direct and proximate result of the Times’ foregoing breach, the Wayfarer
Parties were deprived of the benefits of the bargain in that they lost the opportunity to meaningfully
assess and respond to a false, misleading, extremely inflammatory portrayal of their actions and
character.

391. As a direct and proximate result thereof, the Wayfarer Parties suffered harm in an
amount to be proven at trial.

https://dam.tmz.com/document/fd/o/2025/02/01/fd6320ea729e4407b2857ad9f7f4f570.pdf

Is that really a contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cap33 said:

Well, Blake Lively has informed the court that she doesn't want Baldoni's lawyer deposing her: https://people.com/blake-lively-doesnt-want-justin-baldoni-attorney-bryan-freedman-to-take-her-deposition-8783933  

I mentioned up thread that I am amazed at the shitty lawyering and lack of client control on her side. Add this to the pile. 

And there is no fucking way this settles before things get worse. 

They made the request and then declined to convey a reason?

 

Is that normal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They made the request and then declined to convey a reason?
 
Is that normal?

No.
And the opposing party does not get to choose who the other side can use as counsel for any particular task.
Unless Lively’s team has a basis for a full motion to disqualify (eg, Baldoni’s lawyer already represents Lively, or he is an interested fact witness who will need to testify himself at trial), that’s a garbage motion, and the judge should read her counsel the riot act for fully a groundless motion. If he really wants to take control of this process, he could issue a show case order, telling Lively’s team that they have 72 hours to convince the court that this motion is not groundless and brought in bad faith, or be subject to sanctions.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


This.
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve advised a client that yes, we all know what this case should settle for and how it should be resolved…but we aren’t going to get there until the other side has been sufficiently bloodied so that they see the light.
“Why won’t they just be reasonable?”
“Well…because they are unreasonable people.” Unreasonable people usually come around, eventually…once they’ve felt sufficient pain.

My favorite is the “I’m not afraid to testify - I’m ready for my deposition - I don’t need to prep, I’m telling the truth” crowd.

After the all day depo they always say something like “that wasn’t that bad, right?”

uh, yeah, I’ve seen worse.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cap33 said:

Well, Blake Lively has informed the court that she doesn't want Baldoni's lawyer deposing her: https://people.com/blake-lively-doesnt-want-justin-baldoni-attorney-bryan-freedman-to-take-her-deposition-8783933  

I mentioned up thread that I am amazed at the shitty lawyering and lack of client control on her side. Add this to the pile. 

And there is no fucking way this settles before things get worse. 

 

6 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

They made the request and then declined to convey a reason?

 

Is that normal?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2025 at 11:55 AM, Brisketexan said:


This.
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve advised a client that yes, we all know what this case should settle for and how it should be resolved…but we aren’t going to get there until the other side has been sufficiently bloodied so that they see the light.
“Why won’t they just be reasonable?”
“Well…because they are unreasonable people.” Unreasonable people usually come around, eventually…once they’ve felt sufficient pain.

I did notice they set a trial date in 2026.  That's a lot of legal bills for Baldoni.

They're going to bleed him dry just to sport fuck him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I did notice they set a trial date in 2026.  That's a lot of legal bills for Baldoni.

They're going to bleed him dry just to sport fuck him.

Wayfair (a billionaire) is paying the bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Wayfair (a billionaire) is paying the bills.

uh.... I'm not sure I follow 

Quote

Baldoni co-founded the production company Wayfarer Studios in 2019. Through his company he has produced and co-hosted the Man Enough podcast. He has also published two books centering on male privilege and toxic masculinity.[2]

Baldoni directed and starred opposite Blake Lively in It Ends with Us, a box-office success. Its contentious filming received substantial media coverage, as both Lively and Baldoni filed lawsuits related to the production. The New York Times first reported Lively's allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. Baldoni responded by filing separate lawsuits, against The New York Times and against Lively.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Blotto said:

uh.... I'm not sure I follow 

 

Just guessing - was Wayfare the financial backer to the new studio that this guy runs?  If so, seems they'd have the incentive to get this proven out, both to protect their brand and the guy that runs their little pet project.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I've read this thread and still don't know what the fuck is going on.

 

Very rich narcissists are fighting each other claiming that the other one is the biggest asshole/jackass the world has ever seen.  Odds are that all of them are correct in their contentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Just guessing - was Wayfare the financial backer to the new studio that this guy runs?  If so, seems they'd have the incentive to get this proven out, both to protect their brand and the guy that runs their little pet project.  

I honestly dont even follow this story beyond checking this thread occasionally. But my working theory is that Wayfair the billion dollar online furniture and houseware retailer has fuck all to do with it. Furthermore, I'm working on an angle where Wayfarer, Justin Baldoni's production company that he founded in 2019, is the company that is named in the lawsuit. Not the fucking  furniture store.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I honestly dont even follow this story beyond checking this thread occasionally. But my working theory is that Wayfair the billion dollar online furniture and houseware retailer has fuck all to do with it. Furthermore, I'm working on an angle where Wayfarer, Justin Baldoni's production company that he founded in 2019, is the company that is named in the lawsuit. Not the fucking  furniture store.

Just a cursory search

Quote

Steve Sarowitz is the billionaire who co-founded Wayfarer Studios with Justin Baldoni. Sarowitz is a philanthropist, entrepreneur, and movie producer. 

How Sarowitz became wealthy: 

Sarowitz is the founder and former CEO of Paylocity, a payroll and human resources company. He took the company public in 2014.

Sarowitz has also expanded his business through companies like Blue Marble and Payescape.

How Sarowitz became involved with Wayfarer Studios:

In 2019, Sarowitz co-founded Wayfarer Studios with actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni. 

Sarowitz is the main financier of Wayfarer Studios and has bankrolled many of its films, including It Ends With Us, Code 3, and The Pac Man Movie. 

 

18 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I've read this thread and still don't know what the fuck is going on.

 

Bitches man, bitches....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Very rich narcissists are fighting each other claiming that the other one is the biggest asshole/jackass the world has ever seen.  Odds are that all of them are correct in their contentions.

New Surly motto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...