Speaker 1: Hi, guys, welcome to Legally Brunette with Emily Simpson and
Speaker 1: Shane Simpson. Hi, guys, welcome to our second episode of
Speaker 1: Legally Brunette. First of all, we apologize for having such
Speaker 1: a kind of long space in between our first episode,
Speaker 1: which was on the Menendez brothers, and our second episode,
Speaker 1: which we are going to delve into the Blake Lively
Speaker 1: and Justin Baldoni case. But first of all, I think
Speaker 1: it's really important that we do a little bit of
Speaker 1: an update on Menendez. If you did not listen to
Speaker 1: our first episode, I would say go back and listen
Speaker 1: to it. It's a good episode on Menendez. But as
Speaker 1: of right now, they still have a resentencing hearing scheduled
Speaker 1: for January thirtieth and thirty first. However, the attorney for
Speaker 1: the family of the Menendez family members there's twenty four
Speaker 1: relatives who support the immediate release of Eric and Lyle.
Speaker 1: They are represented by Brian Friedman. He claims that he
Speaker 1: plans to petition for the Menindez case to be trans
Speaker 1: to a California Attorney General's office. That is because there
Speaker 1: is in his opinion, and I would agree with him,
Speaker 1: there is a conflict of interest So there is an
Speaker 1: attorney named Kathleen Katie who represented the one member of
Speaker 1: the Menendez family members who was against their receencing and release.
Speaker 1: His name is Milton. He is the brother of Kitty Menendez.
Speaker 1: He does not think that they should be released from prison.
Speaker 1: Kathleen Katy represented him pro bono and she has now
Speaker 1: been named the DA's Director of the Bureau of Victim's Services.
Speaker 1: She represented Milton who did not want them released from prison.
Speaker 1: She represented him pro bono. She was a big supporter
Speaker 1: of Hawkman being the new DA, So I think there's
Speaker 1: political undertones. And she has now been named the DA's
Speaker 1: Director of the Bureau of Victim's Services, which means she
Speaker 1: would be heavily involved in the resentencing.
Speaker 2: So there's going to be hearing on the conflict. Is
Speaker 2: there going to be a determination with Well, that's.
Speaker 1: Where we're at. I think procedurally, what will happen is
Speaker 1: I think that January thirtieth hearing will either get continued
Speaker 1: or taken off calendar if he files a petition. I
Speaker 1: think he'll either file a petition to recuse her from
Speaker 1: the case or a petition to move the venue. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I do know that today, the new DA is meeting
Speaker 1: with the twenty four family members who support their release.
Speaker 2: I think the little I come across with the new DA.
Speaker 2: Some people think that the new DA is opposed to
Speaker 2: their release or some of the effect. But I think
Speaker 2: it's more the DA needs to be He's new, he's
Speaker 2: in office. He's going to be caught up on everything. Right,
Speaker 2: He's not just going to green light it because it's
Speaker 2: a Netflix special, right.
Speaker 1: I agree, And I think he needed the time to
Speaker 1: go back and he wanted to go through everything thoroughly.
Speaker 1: I do think people speculated that he was not in
Speaker 1: favor of their recencing release because he met with Milton already,
Speaker 1: and Milton is the brother of Kitty, like I said earlier,
Speaker 1: who does not want them released from prison? And I
Speaker 1: think people interpreted that as him being pro Well, you.
Speaker 2: Know what way to look at it? Do you want
Speaker 2: the DA to be thorough?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Because if he or she is not thorough and then
Speaker 2: something comes up that hinders the recensing hearing or they
Speaker 2: are all their opportunities to be released. I mean, they
Speaker 2: could go against them as well. So you want them
Speaker 2: to be thorough and you don't want it to cause
Speaker 2: an issue later down the road that maybe it's a
Speaker 2: faulty hearing of some sort or I agree, and.
Speaker 1: I think it's not an issue of him being thorough.
Speaker 1: I think that's a good thing. I think the issue
Speaker 1: is that this Kathleen Katie is now part of the
Speaker 1: DA's office and she's director of the Victim Services Section,
Speaker 1: which would be representing the family members are considered victims
Speaker 1: of a crime, certainly, and I think people are afraid
Speaker 1: that there's a conflict of interests there because she's been
Speaker 1: representing Milton pro bono and then that's the side that
Speaker 1: she would lean to. So it looks to me like
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest and that she should either be
Speaker 1: ricus from the case or else the venue needs to
Speaker 1: be changed.
Speaker 2: So anyway, we.
Speaker 1: Will continue to follow that and give you any updates
Speaker 1: as they Yeah, time will tell you as they come up.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get into the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni case,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is so crazy and convoluted. I
Speaker 1: have spent probably the last four or five days. I
Speaker 1: have read the entire complaint that Blake Lively's attorneys filed,
Speaker 1: and I have read the entire complaint that Justin Baldoni's
Speaker 1: attorneys have filed on his behalf against The New York
Speaker 1: Times as mostly there's several causes of action, but a
Speaker 1: libel case.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, then let's keep it simple, because I don't
Speaker 2: know as much as you do on this case yet.
Speaker 2: So what's the first in the order of events. What's
Speaker 2: the first thing that has surfaced, whether it be a
Speaker 2: legal proceeding or whether it just be a formal complaint
Speaker 2: or an informal complaint.
Speaker 1: Well, let's go just a little bit, and let's just say,
Speaker 1: let's just start with this. All surrounds the movie It
Speaker 1: Ends with Us, which was a book written by Colleen Hoover.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly when she wrote it, probably I
Speaker 1: don't know, but I read it i'd say three to
Speaker 1: four years ago. It was a very popular book. It
Speaker 1: Ends with Us, Okay, it has to do a domestic violence.
Speaker 1: It has a very strong female leader. Her name's Lily Bloom.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people connected with it. I
Speaker 1: liked it. I thought it was a great book. I
Speaker 1: think I read it during the whole quarantine time frame
Speaker 1: when I was reading a lot because there wasn't anything
Speaker 1: else to do.
Speaker 2: Well, you like a lot of Hoover's book.
Speaker 1: I do, I do. I'm a big fan of Colleen
Speaker 1: Hoover and actually good friends with her. I like her
Speaker 1: very much. And just side note, Colleen does support Blake
Speaker 1: in this situation. She posted on her Instagram and support
Speaker 1: of Blake. She didn't say anything negative about Justin, which
Speaker 1: I appreciated, but she did support Blake anyway. When the
Speaker 1: movie premiered over the summer, there was a lot of
Speaker 1: speculation that there was tension on set between Justin and
Speaker 1: Blake Lively. Blake Lively was the lead role. Justin Baldoni
Speaker 1: owns the production company called Wayfairer, and he and a partner,
Speaker 1: Jamie He's owned the production company. They bought the rights
Speaker 1: to the book to make a screenplay five years ago.
Speaker 2: Okay, so this so they bought the screenplay and they
Speaker 2: planned to produce it themselves, right, And.
Speaker 1: He's also backed his company is backed by a third
Speaker 1: friend who is a billionaire. His last name is Sarrowitz,
Speaker 1: and he's also a part of all this.
Speaker 2: Legal Okay, so we got three people so far in
Speaker 2: the production side.
Speaker 1: So when the movie premiered, I would say there was
Speaker 1: a ton of press surrounding all this tension between these people.
Speaker 1: I would say, based upon the things I read that
Speaker 1: I was very much swayed towards Blake Lively being difficult,
Speaker 1: being hard.
Speaker 2: To work with.
Speaker 1: I would say a lot of interviews and the past
Speaker 1: resurfaced that showed her being kind of disrespectful, a little condescendings.
Speaker 1: I think she got a lot of bad press. Also,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of things being said that she
Speaker 1: wasn't promoting the movie and the way it should because
Speaker 1: it had to do with domestic violence, that she was
Speaker 1: focusing more on it being like something you like a
Speaker 1: chick flick, go go see it with your girlfriends, wear
Speaker 1: a flowery dress, have a cocktail. And she was also,
Speaker 1: I mean, the heart of the movie is domestic violence,
Speaker 1: and it's I think it's considered intimate domestic violence where
Speaker 1: it's they're married.
Speaker 2: Okay, But if she's promoting in a way where it's
Speaker 2: a fun girl movie, how was I mean, maybe that's incorrect,
Speaker 2: but maybe that's that's how she saw it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, is that wrong that she I mean if
Speaker 2: I think Diehard is a funny movie, but everyone else
Speaker 2: thinks is an action flick, because we will think it's
Speaker 2: a Christmas movie. I mean, is that wrong?
Speaker 1: Well, I think people took it as it was disrespectful
Speaker 1: to people who have been of a serious situation. So
Speaker 1: so that's just some of the background between those two parties.
Speaker 1: When there was, you know, the movie premiere, I think
Speaker 1: they weren't even on the red carpet together, and so
Speaker 1: there was a lot of Art.
Speaker 2: And Lively and there are a couple in the movie.
Speaker 2: Their characters are a couple.
Speaker 1: They're married in the movie. Okay, so on December twenty,
Speaker 1: it's a twenty twenty four, Blake Lively files a sexual
Speaker 1: harassment complaint against Justin Baldoni with the California Civil Rights Department.
Speaker 1: Now this is important that she filed with the California
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Department, which means it's more of an administrative
Speaker 1: suit at this point, it's not a civil or criminal suit.
Speaker 1: So she filed an eighty page legal complaint which accused
Speaker 1: Baldoni of sexual harassment during filming, as well as retaliation
Speaker 1: against Lively when she attempted to stand up against the
Speaker 1: allegedmist behavior. Okay, it's I did read the eighty page complaint.
Speaker 1: I read all the exhibits, but here's the crux of it.
Speaker 1: Simultaneous with the complaint being filed, The New York Times
Speaker 1: published a piece entitled we Can Bury Anyone inside a
Speaker 1: Hollywood Smear Machine. It was published live on December twenty first,
Speaker 1: the day after her complaint was filed. Now, if you
Speaker 1: kind of cross reference it with Justin Baldoni's suit against
Speaker 1: the New York Times, he claims that they were told
Speaker 1: I think they were given notice. I don't remember the
Speaker 1: exact time, but it was like nine thirty PM that
Speaker 1: this piece was going to come out, and they had
Speaker 1: I think only like a fourteen hour timeframe to respond
Speaker 1: to it, and they were given until noon the next
Speaker 1: day to respond, but they ended up publishing the article
Speaker 1: earlier than what they had given them a time frame
Speaker 1: to respond.
Speaker 2: Did that time frame? Where did that time frame come?
Speaker 1: It came from a New York Times The author of
Speaker 1: the oh, like, we're going to publish this at such time.
Speaker 1: I believe they sent the piece to them and said,
Speaker 1: we're going to publish this. What's your response. You have
Speaker 1: until noon the following day, But then they ended up
Speaker 1: publishing it at like ten am.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I mean, can you.
Speaker 1: Imagine as an attorney or as the you know, the
Speaker 1: as Justin Baldoni. You receive a ninety page complaint against
Speaker 1: you with all these exhibits attached, and then you're supposed
Speaker 1: to have a response to it.
Speaker 2: Well, you're supposed to absorb it all. Then you're supposed
Speaker 2: to interview people to figure out what's going on and
Speaker 2: then create a response.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, So I think that was a big I mean,
Speaker 1: that was a problem.
Speaker 2: I believe you didn't really first filing. You said it
Speaker 2: wasn't a civil complaint, and it certainly wasn't criminals, So
Speaker 2: what was it?
Speaker 1: Well, no, it was more of an administrative complaint she
Speaker 1: filed with the California is just a.
Speaker 2: Document kind of time stamp the complaint or was it
Speaker 2: an hr A union?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I believe so, I don't really know. All I
Speaker 1: know is that she did end up filing basically the
Speaker 1: same complaint in federal court in New York. Okay, So
Speaker 1: now we've got a California Civil Rights Department complaint filed,
Speaker 1: We've got Justin Baldoni filing a libel suit against The
Speaker 1: New York Times, and then we've got Blake filing basically
Speaker 1: the same sexual harassment suit in a federal court in
Speaker 1: New York.
Speaker 2: Okay, so have the eighty page complaint that you're right,
Speaker 2: what's the juicy stuff it? Well, let's get to the
Speaker 2: get to what we're here for.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's get to the juicy stuff. So, she claims
Speaker 1: that during filming that she was subjected to sexual harassment
Speaker 1: and some of her some of her examples are showing
Speaker 1: nude images of women.
Speaker 2: But basically, no, no, no, who is she saying is
Speaker 2: sexually harassing her?
Speaker 1: Well, this is the thing. I feel like you have
Speaker 1: to read her complaint and then you have to read
Speaker 1: justin Baldoni's complaint to actually understand what's going on. Because
Speaker 1: she claims she's shown nude images. He claims those nude
Speaker 1: images were his partner, mister Heath, showing her his wife
Speaker 1: giving birth as part of because there's a scene where
Speaker 1: she gives birth in the movie. Okay, So he claims
Speaker 1: that it was a creative type of conversation, like you
Speaker 1: should we should film it like this, Look here's my
Speaker 1: wife giving birth.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So to him, it's an innocuous, benign video of a
Speaker 1: woman giving birth. To her, she's claiming.
Speaker 2: He's showing something inappropriate.
Speaker 1: Her showing inappropriate images of women, also talking about porn
Speaker 1: and some type of porn addiction. And then apparently her
Speaker 1: trainer was asked about her weight, which she claims is
Speaker 1: body shaming. His response is, there was supposedly a scene
Speaker 1: where he's supposed to pick her up, and he has
Speaker 1: back problems, so he went to her trainer and asked
Speaker 1: how much she weighed. Well, at least he didn't ask her. No,
Speaker 1: he circumvented her. He went to the trainer asked how
Speaker 1: much she weighed. I guess she found out about it,
Speaker 1: and she basically claimed that he was body shaming her.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a hard one for me. I can
Speaker 1: see both sides. I can understand she just gave birth
Speaker 1: when she filmed the movie four months prior, so I
Speaker 1: can understand she gave birth in real life, and she
Speaker 1: gives birth in the movie. And then he shows her
Speaker 1: a video of birthing. Yes, it's a kind of a
Speaker 1: birthing going on, So she claims that she was body shamed.
Speaker 1: She also claims that there wasn't an intimacy coordinator on
Speaker 1: set and that there should be. But then in his.
Speaker 2: I imagine the intimacy coordinator is probably always right. It's
Speaker 2: probably standard thing. I know I would want one if
Speaker 2: I was a production company, I would want one there
Speaker 2: because you need like a third kind of neutral party
Speaker 2: or someone to kind of set the record straight as
Speaker 2: to what the place.
Speaker 1: I think what they do is they actually coordinate the
Speaker 1: movements so that it's.
Speaker 2: Would you like hiring coordinators? We'll look into that, sir.
Speaker 2: So there was none on set, No, there was.
Speaker 1: So in her complaint is she makes it like there
Speaker 1: wasn't an intimacy coordinator. Then in his filing he says
Speaker 1: there was an intimacy coordinator, and he shows text messages
Speaker 1: where he texts Blake and said would you like to
Speaker 1: meet with the intimacy coordinator? And she says basically like
Speaker 1: not right now. So then Justin meets with the intimacy
Speaker 1: coordinator on his own, takes notes, and then when he
Speaker 1: goes to the scene, he's giving the notes apparently allegedly
Speaker 1: from his Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he could have just wrote whatever he wanted. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's true to she approved this, She approved this this.
Speaker 2: So that's that's very faulty right there. You have a
Speaker 2: you're saying he didn't protect himself. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: You're saying you have an intimacy coordinator, she chooses not
Speaker 1: to meet with intimacy coordinator. You meet with the intimate
Speaker 1: intimacy coordinator, You take notes.
Speaker 2: If anything, she should have seen something, say she's waving
Speaker 2: her opportunities to be with an intimacy coordinator. That's what
Speaker 2: you do. Like if you get injured on the job. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and then you refuse medical attention, you have to sign.
Speaker 2: You typically sign something saying I refuse medical attention.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think she didn't. As far as the
Speaker 1: text messages that I saw in the complaint. In Baldoni's complaint,
Speaker 1: she didn't refuse. She just said not now, maybe later.
Speaker 1: And so he was meeting with the coordinator on his own,
Speaker 1: taking his own notes, and then going back into the scene.
Speaker 1: She claims that he was improvising these sex scenes too
Speaker 1: much like he bit her lip. He was doing things
Speaker 1: that were inappropriate, that were outside the scope. Okay, I
Speaker 1: guess outside the scope of her nudity writer. I've never
Speaker 1: heard of a nudity writer before. I'm not. I mean,
Speaker 1: we don't have them on reality. Maybe we should need one.
Speaker 1: But apparently outside of your regular contract as the main
Speaker 1: star in this she also has a nudity writer which
Speaker 1: outlines I'm sure it's specific, I haven't seen.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, cutting to the chase, she claimed he deviated
Speaker 2: from whatever her expectations were and whatever her limits were.
Speaker 1: Right then, she also claims that not only Baldoni, but
Speaker 1: also his business partner, mister Heath, would enter while she
Speaker 1: was breastfeeding, and that that made her uncomfortable or that she.
Speaker 2: Was changing her That's where I have a problem. Why
Speaker 2: wasn't her door locked? I mean, if I'm going to
Speaker 2: change my pants, I'm going to lock the door. You know.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's her fault. Yeah, but if she
Speaker 2: if someone doesn't lock the door in a time where
Speaker 2: they don't want someone walking in on them, and then
Speaker 2: someone walks in on them, Okay, that's an unfortunate incident. Now,
Speaker 2: lesson learned. Don't walk in without knocking, and also lock
Speaker 2: the door, right.
Speaker 1: I don't you know the whole walking in on her
Speaker 1: when she's breastfeeding or whatever. Again, I have to cross
Speaker 1: reference it with Baldoni's complaining against The New York Times
Speaker 1: because he does insert text messages where she invites him
Speaker 1: in to work onlines while she's I believe pumping milk okay,
Speaker 1: So I think she said a time.
Speaker 2: So I'm guessing that the initial complaints only showed her side.
Speaker 2: He walked in on me, he showed me this video.
Speaker 2: Then he eventually responds in whatever format and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: but we had Now he's filling in the blanks. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but we had text conversations. She was okay with me
Speaker 2: being present while she was bumping for breast milk, and
Speaker 2: she denied or she waved kind of the opportunity to
Speaker 2: see the intimacy coordinate at least at that moment exactly.
Speaker 2: So he's filling in these he's providing all his defenses, right,
Speaker 2: and he's substantiating it with like texts and stuff.
Speaker 1: I believe his response to his suit against The New
Speaker 1: York Times was very telling for me. I think, if
Speaker 1: you are really interested in this case and you really
Speaker 1: want to have an informed opinion on what's going on,
Speaker 1: I would say, read Blake's complaint. It's eighty pages, but
Speaker 1: you can read it pretty quickly. You know, every time
Speaker 1: you file a complaint, attorney on your behalf, it's persuasive, right,
Speaker 1: You're going to write it from the perspective you're going
Speaker 1: to advocate for your own client, You're gonna you're going
Speaker 1: to leave out certain things that are damaging to damaging exactly.
Speaker 1: So you read her complaint and you're like, Wow, this
Speaker 1: guy did all these things and he acted like this,
Speaker 1: and he you know, you have this vision of him
Speaker 1: like intruding into her space and you know, making out
Speaker 1: with her when they say cut, but he's still kissing
Speaker 1: her and you know. But then you read his complaint
Speaker 1: against The New York Times, and he really kind of
Speaker 1: a it does. He really substantiates what happened why, and
Speaker 1: he has some really good defenses.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then there's and is that in the complaint?
Speaker 2: Is that in the uh legal proceedings with the defamation suit?
Speaker 2: Or is that in his response to.
Speaker 1: Her He hasn't responded to her yet.
Speaker 2: Oh, he hasn't responded her yet. No, okay, So we
Speaker 2: only have her complaints, her complaints and then his defamation laws.
Speaker 2: Did they initiated with The New York Times? Yes? And
Speaker 2: you're saying, read both those and then that's what you're
Speaker 2: putting together. Yes, and he has not yet responded to
Speaker 2: her complaint. No, that would be more telling as well exactly.
Speaker 1: I know that they are actually and this is interesting.
Speaker 1: I didn't make this connection earlier in this in this
Speaker 1: conversation we're having. But Brian Friedman, who represents the Menindaz family,
Speaker 1: is Justin Baldoni's attorney. So this man is a busy man.
Speaker 1: He is out there representing the Menindaz family trying to
Speaker 1: get them released from prison, while he's also representing Justin
Speaker 1: Baldoni in this Blake Lively case. So Brian Friedman is
Speaker 1: a busy man right now. So he claims that he well,
Speaker 1: obviously they're gonna they're gonna file a response, which is
Speaker 1: interesting because then I feel like we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: do another episode because we're gonna have to go through
Speaker 1: his response, which I assume his response is going to
Speaker 1: kind of mirror what he filed against The New York
Speaker 1: Times for libel. It's going to have a lot of
Speaker 1: the same information in it.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So, also, she not only claims sexual harassment, but she
Speaker 1: also claims in her complaint that they had a a meticulous,
Speaker 1: very planned out, coordinated attack on her character.
Speaker 2: Because towards the why hold on, why would they plan
Speaker 2: and attack? Assuming that's correct, why would they plan an
Speaker 2: attack on her character, because when and what timeline of
Speaker 2: events is this?
Speaker 1: Okay, So when the movie was about to be released,
Speaker 1: Justin Baldoni hires a crisis management PR firm. They're the
Speaker 1: same ones that represented Johnny Depp. This is her name
Speaker 1: is Melissa Nathan. He also has another PR person named
Speaker 1: Jennifer Abel.
Speaker 2: Why it's not normal. I'm going to release a movie.
Speaker 2: I need to get a crisis management team.
Speaker 1: That's probably not normal. But I think he was thinking,
Speaker 1: if she makes these, you know, sexual harassment allegations public, he.
Speaker 2: First complaints had already been made internally, and so he
Speaker 2: had fear or worrisome that it would surface and probably
Speaker 2: cause damage to his reputation or the movie.
Speaker 1: Right, So let's go back a little bit. So they
Speaker 1: film half of the movie, let's just say half. Then
Speaker 1: the writer's strike occurs, Okay, so they have to shut
Speaker 1: down production. They don't film for months. On November, they production,
Speaker 1: I know there's an actor's strike.
Speaker 2: There was an actor strike.
Speaker 1: Whatever the already done, right, Okay, there's an actor's strike.
Speaker 1: There's a strike. Good thing I'm here, Good thing you
Speaker 1: are here. Okay, there's a strike. They shut down production.
Speaker 1: They can't film the rest of the movie. Got it
Speaker 1: On November nine, the strike is over. Everybody can go
Speaker 1: back to work. On that same day, there is an
Speaker 1: email sent to Wayfair Justin Baldoni, his partner from Blake's
Speaker 1: legal team, basically saying that they need to put a
Speaker 1: protections for return to production into places. That's what you
Speaker 1: called it, a protections for return to.
Speaker 2: Production, protections for return to production.
Speaker 1: Protections for return to production.
Speaker 2: Okay, what is that?
Speaker 1: In Layman's terms, it's basically seventeen items that were listed
Speaker 1: that all needed to be adhered to and agreed upon
Speaker 1: for Blake to return to the set to film the
Speaker 1: rest of the movie.
Speaker 2: So again late terms, she fears things went off the
Speaker 2: rail a little bit. They have a pause because of
Speaker 2: the strike. They come back to set and she's saying,
Speaker 2: these are seventeen issues that I need addressed right in
Speaker 2: some fashion, right.
Speaker 1: And it's basically in Layman's You know, I didn't write
Speaker 1: down all sets.
Speaker 2: One of them. Yeah, it had a lot of birthing videos.
Speaker 1: Birthing videos. It was basically in a nutshell to cease
Speaker 1: on set behavior of mister Baldoni and his partner, mister
Speaker 1: Heath both parties agreed to adopt it. And I do
Speaker 1: know that I believe that there was a response to
Speaker 1: those seventeen you know, requests of basically like, we don't
Speaker 1: agree with everything that you're we're not asking, we're not admitting,
Speaker 1: we're not admitting that we did these things.
Speaker 2: But will acknowledge your complaints and probably correct it going forward, right,
Speaker 2: And well, that's pretty good, that's professional so far.
Speaker 1: Right, So basically it's like, look, I don't think we
Speaker 1: did all these things, but in order to move ahead
Speaker 1: and to film the rest of this movie, and everything
Speaker 1: you're asking is reasonable. Clearly, there shouldn't be nudity, There
Speaker 1: shouldn't be poorn, there shouldn't be sexual harassment, you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be made to feel uncomfortable. Like we correct, We okay,
Speaker 1: we agree, and you know, they signed off on it.
Speaker 1: Part of those seventeen terms, one of them was an
Speaker 1: it was called an all hands and meeting where she
Speaker 1: wanted justin the Wayfarer people people from Sony because Sony
Speaker 1: was the one that is the movie.
Speaker 2: She wanted a lot of the big wags right.
Speaker 1: And her there also with some producers and they were
Speaker 1: doing it what's called all hands and yeah, so that
Speaker 1: was scheduled for January fourth because January fifth was when
Speaker 1: they were going to pick up production again.
Speaker 2: There was a little bit of pressure. So like the
Speaker 2: day before, she wants a meeting, right, so they have
Speaker 2: the meeting.
Speaker 1: They have the meeting. This meeting takes place at her
Speaker 1: penthouse with Ryan Reynolds, who is her husband present, apparently
Speaker 1: according to.
Speaker 2: Well, Okay, I don't know. I don't know how Hollywood
Speaker 2: works or anything, but the husband being present, I don't
Speaker 2: know that that. If the issue was with you, I
Speaker 2: would support you one hundred percent. But I don't know
Speaker 2: if i'd be the right person to be in the meeting.
Speaker 2: You'd have to have a professional in there, like another lawyer,
Speaker 2: someone that's kind of hired help. Well, I do as
Speaker 2: opposed to like he's part of it.
Speaker 1: But she had representatives from Sony, she had some other
Speaker 1: producer representative that she picked. I mean, she had other
Speaker 1: people there.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not wrong that he's there, but it
Speaker 2: just if he if he was there and said nothing,
Speaker 2: which I don't know what the answer is. He was
Speaker 2: there and he said no, that's okay because he's there
Speaker 2: to sport his wife. But if he's there and he's
Speaker 2: chiming in on everything. Then then it just becomes like
Speaker 2: more of an emotional thing and a personal thing as
Speaker 2: opposed to like a professional issue that's being resolved. Right,
Speaker 2: so he said.
Speaker 1: Something, Well, so this meeting takes place at their penthouse
Speaker 1: in New York, and apparently, according to Baldoni's suit, who's
Speaker 1: penthouse and Blake and Ryan their marriage.
Speaker 2: It's on their home turf.
Speaker 1: It's on their home turf and their own home. Apparently
Speaker 1: there were A list stars coming in and out, is
Speaker 1: what justin Baldonie's lawsuit says. So I'm like, who are
Speaker 1: these A list stars that are just walking in and
Speaker 1: out while this meeting is going on? But that's what
Speaker 1: they claim. But also just to let you know, just
Speaker 1: to give you a little background, supposedly Ryan Rynolds was
Speaker 1: very involved in this film and actually rewrote a scene
Speaker 1: and yeah, was there and involved in it. And so.
Speaker 2: Would you like me to do that when you're filming,
Speaker 2: you want me to come in there and start to
Speaker 2: say no, this needs to be said, you need to
Speaker 2: do this.
Speaker 1: I mean sometimes I'd like to just bow out, bring
Speaker 1: Shane in. That's my replacement. But so this meeting takes place.
Speaker 1: It was called the all hands in meeting. It's on
Speaker 1: January fourth. Apparently they're going through, you know, all these
Speaker 1: grievances that she has, and then Ryan Reynolds goes off
Speaker 1: on Justin Baldoni and attacks him for this reference he
Speaker 1: made to Blake's weight that had to do with body shaming,
Speaker 1: and apparently it was I don't know, it was traumatic
Speaker 1: for him. He said, he's never been spoken to like that,
Speaker 1: He's never been yelled at like that before. So I
Speaker 1: just have this visual of these two A list actors
Speaker 1: and their fancy pit house just going off on this.
Speaker 1: Guys are just coming and going. So he claims in
Speaker 1: his suit that a Sony representatives said that they regret
Speaker 1: not getting involved and telling him that he was out
Speaker 1: of line. Here, there's what I would like, and this
Speaker 1: is what isn't in either of these complaints. And maybe
Speaker 1: this will come later, but I would like declarations signed
Speaker 1: under penalty of burgery from these people, because obviously that's hearsay,
Speaker 1: just saying that Sony representatives said this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, yeah, that's a tough one that now
Speaker 2: looking back, you know, if the meeting was documented somehow,
Speaker 2: that is stenography or something.
Speaker 1: That is just what at this point, what I feel
Speaker 1: like is missing is I want declarations from people who
Speaker 1: were there, who were witnesses saying this is the way.
Speaker 2: This goes back to what I said earlier with the
Speaker 2: intimacy coordinator. You need to have a third person that's unbiased.
Speaker 2: And so here you have a meeting with all these
Speaker 2: people that are upset, and there should have been some
Speaker 2: way to document what was said and what it was exchanged.
Speaker 2: I don't and I don't know how they do that.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's normal to record it or
Speaker 2: to you know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. But here's probably what's going on right now,
Speaker 1: because justin Baldoni's going to a he's going to file
Speaker 1: a response. I mean, I would assume that they're working
Speaker 1: on all of that. Yeah, and his attorney came out today.
Speaker 1: There was an article today that I read about Doni's attorney,
Speaker 1: Brian Freeman, came out today and said they planned to
Speaker 1: sue Blake personally and that he is more than happy
Speaker 1: and to share all their text messages.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 1: So that's interesting as well. Here's my take on it,
Speaker 1: and we'll get more into the legal aspect of it.
Speaker 1: But here's my take away as someone who read the complaint,
Speaker 1: saw the movie, has read lots of articles read the
Speaker 1: complaint against The New York Times. My takeaway is is
Speaker 1: that this is a power struggle between an A list
Speaker 1: actress who's married to Ryan Reynolds, who really felt that
Speaker 1: this movie was hers and that she developed the character
Speaker 1: and that she was Lily Bloom, and she took control
Speaker 1: of costuming, and she wore a lot of her own clothes,
Speaker 1: and she wanted to rewrite scenes, and the end of
Speaker 1: the movie, she ends up editing the movie herself and
Speaker 1: kicking Justin Baldoni out, according to him. Allegedly, that's according
Speaker 1: to him. And I think it comes down to a
Speaker 1: power struggle between Justin Baldoni, who bought the film or
Speaker 1: bought the rights to the film and wanted to produce
Speaker 1: the film. But he's not a I didn't know who
Speaker 1: he was until this.
Speaker 2: Have you ever heard of her creative differences?
Speaker 1: Creative differences, But I think those creative differences are based
Speaker 1: on her being an A list actors getting her way.
Speaker 2: Wait, you're saying, Baldoni, this is his first kind of
Speaker 2: big screen I mean, I know he was. He was
Speaker 2: in a series. I can't remember what it was, but
Speaker 2: I would say this is his I'd never heard of
Speaker 2: him before until now. I mean, she's clearly the bigger starr.
Speaker 2: But I think going into the movie, he was a director.
Speaker 2: He's the owner, it's his production studio. But I think
Speaker 2: there was a power struggle, and I I think that
Speaker 2: something happened. I know what it is, but I think
Speaker 2: something happened. I know it happens a lot, and there's
Speaker 2: a lot of good movies that come out of it.
Speaker 2: But he had too many hats. He was he had
Speaker 2: too much responsibility. Yeah, you know, how can he direct himself?
Speaker 2: So I mean, if he's being inappropriate with the intimacy scenes,
Speaker 2: and then she goes in complaints to the director, which
Speaker 2: is him, what's he going to do tell himself, like
Speaker 2: stop biting her lip? I mean, he can't do that.
Speaker 2: So there was there was not any There was no
Speaker 2: neutral people in this to be able to help guide it.
Speaker 1: So you're saying his it was his fault that he
Speaker 1: owns a production company, But he should have had safe
Speaker 1: guards in.
Speaker 2: Place for him, because I know lots of actors do that,
Speaker 2: and that's cool. I think Soles she's Stone, one of
Speaker 2: my favorites, does that. He wrote, directs and acts because
Speaker 2: he's like, I know Rocky, right, so I know it
Speaker 2: can happen. It's not abnormal. But watching this you certainly,
Speaker 2: especially if you're going to hire Blake Lively, you should
Speaker 2: certainly have someone like security or someone in the room
Speaker 2: all the time, right, Like I know at work, when
Speaker 2: there's a complaint and a male boss is going to
Speaker 2: have a female person in there that he always brings
Speaker 2: in another female to sit there to make sure that
Speaker 2: nothing inappropriates exchanged and if there is, then then that
Speaker 2: person can report it. And obviously you pick the gender
Speaker 2: because then you can remove any biases. So you're messed
Speaker 2: up that way. Yeah, it doesn't mean he's guilty or anything.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying he messed up that way. But who
Speaker 2: knew what he was dealing with. Maybe he didn't want it,
Speaker 2: and maybe maybe he wanted it to just be him
Speaker 2: and Blake Lively.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I'm here's my question. If the
Speaker 1: first half of the movie was filmed and there weren't
Speaker 1: really any documented issues, but then they have the strike
Speaker 1: down and there's downtime for months, but then she reaches
Speaker 1: out the day of the strike ends her through her
Speaker 1: legal counsel, reaches out and says, here's these grievances. I'm
Speaker 1: not coming back to it.
Speaker 2: It was the day before, right, January fourth. They before, that.
Speaker 1: Was the day they had the meeting of hands and leading, right.
Speaker 1: So then after this meeting they all agree, they adopt
Speaker 1: the you know, we're abide by everything you say. They
Speaker 1: just need to get the movie made. I feel like
Speaker 1: he had his hands tied, like he has to agree
Speaker 1: to all her demands because he has millions of dollars
Speaker 1: invested in this movie, right, and they they lost time.
Speaker 1: They've invested millions of dollars. They've only got half of
Speaker 1: this movie made. They have to finish it. I think
Speaker 1: she knew the power that she had, and she consistently
Speaker 1: was like, I'm not going to finish unless this. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to finish unless this according to him, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think he has any power in this.
Speaker 1: She's the lead star. If she constantly threatens I'm not
Speaker 1: going to finish. I'm not going to finish. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to come back to work. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: do this. They don't have time to argue they don't
Speaker 1: have time to get counseled. They're not going to try.
Speaker 1: They don't want to piss her off anymore. No, your
Speaker 1: hands are tied in the situation. You basically just have
Speaker 1: to be like, whatever you say, whatever, whatever you say,
Speaker 1: I agree to whatever you say. But here's something that
Speaker 1: I find interesting, And tell me what you think about this.
Speaker 1: Once they agreed to those seventeen demands that she had,
Speaker 1: it was all in writing. She even says in her
Speaker 1: in her complaint that after that the movie was finished,
Speaker 1: it was wrapped, there were no more issues.
Speaker 2: Oh wait, so she confirmed that the second half of
Speaker 2: the filming right, things were appropriate, appropriate, It was wrapped,
Speaker 2: So what's done? So okay, here's where the mess up
Speaker 2: is Baldoni trying to do his crisis control because it
Speaker 2: was a preemptive strike or attempt that may never have
Speaker 2: needed to be in place to begin with. Let's get
Speaker 2: into that. And I don't will never know because we
Speaker 2: don't have a time machine. But it had he not
Speaker 2: done that, it might have been all reasons.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna agree with that, because my
Speaker 1: take is these publicists whose private text messages have been
Speaker 1: made public is what was the catalyst for her suit
Speaker 1: against him. So he has a crisis PR team that
Speaker 1: he hires. He also has a publicist named Jennifer Abel.
Speaker 1: Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan are the two main characters
Speaker 1: in this. They're constantly texting with Baldoni about PR and
Speaker 1: you know, stories and all these things. Apparently he hired
Speaker 1: this crisis management firm and they do this thing called astroturfing.
Speaker 1: I don't really understand what it is. But then there
Speaker 1: was this outside company hired some guy in Texas. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's bots, but they do have some way,
Speaker 1: some logistical way to put good things out and maybe
Speaker 1: suppress bad things. They also have relationships with you know,
Speaker 1: your big players like Daily Mail, Cartmry, all those things.
Speaker 1: The thing that I thought from the very beginning when
Speaker 1: I read the complaint and there were pages and pages
Speaker 1: of personal text messages between Justin Baldoni, his publicist, Jennifer Abel,
Speaker 1: and then the crisis management team, which was Melissa Nathan,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking to myself, where did Blake Lively get all
Speaker 1: these text messages? How did her team? How did her
Speaker 1: legal team get these text messages? You know that you
Speaker 1: would only be able to get those through discovery. After
Speaker 1: you filed a complaint and then you go into a.
Speaker 2: Discovery the surfaced you done so in a way.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you how. I think it was surface in
Speaker 1: Baldoni's lawsuit touches on it a little bit. There was
Speaker 1: another There's a lot of key players, a lot of
Speaker 1: publicists involved in this, but there was a woman named
Speaker 1: Stephanie Works who was a publicist for Baldoni. Apparently they
Speaker 1: had a falling out. She also worked with his other publicists,
Speaker 1: Jennifer Abel and then something happened where Jennifer and Stephanie
Speaker 1: split ways. Stephanie confiscated her work phone and then did
Speaker 1: a forensic analysis on it, and that's where all these
Speaker 1: text messages came from. I think, what she this is me,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm this is me. Just my opinion. I think
Speaker 1: this woman Stephanie saw all these text messages that had
Speaker 1: to do with Blake Lively and all these you know,
Speaker 1: ways to figure out how to suppress certain stories or
Speaker 1: whatever's going on, and she gave those two Blake's team,
Speaker 1: probably in return for something. I don't know. Blakelee Lively
Speaker 1: is a huge A list actress. I'm sure it was like, hey,
Speaker 1: I have this. I think that's what's called. It's like
Speaker 1: a friendly subpoena. Oh, there's so many.
Speaker 2: I can't give examples.
Speaker 1: They would say, well, they would send articles back and
Speaker 1: forth like did you see this? Did you see the
Speaker 1: response to this? We need to do this, let's talk
Speaker 1: to this, let's do this. Honestly, here's the crux of
Speaker 1: his libel suit with the New York Times. If you
Speaker 1: look at Blake Lively's complaint, she puts in text messages
Speaker 1: that say things like he wants us to bury her,
Speaker 1: you know, things like that that don't look so great
Speaker 1: for him, that it looks like he's intentionally trying to
Speaker 1: make her look bad. In the press, they publish text messages,
Speaker 1: but they don't publish the entire conversation. If you look
Speaker 1: at his suit against the New York Times, he publishes
Speaker 1: the entire text chain.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is how it should be, because I know
Speaker 2: in quart a lot of times, when you print out
Speaker 2: the texts a judgement very well say I want to
Speaker 2: see the phone. I want to see the whole string
Speaker 2: of texts, right, I don't want to see selective you
Speaker 2: know print right.
Speaker 1: Let me just give you an example there's a lot
Speaker 1: of examples. Let me just give you an example. There's
Speaker 1: a text exchange about an article that says could Blake
Speaker 1: Lively be canceled? They left out in Blake's complaint where
Speaker 1: one of where Justin's publicist says, damn, this is unfair
Speaker 1: because this is also not me. Everything now looks like
Speaker 1: it's me insinuating that that wasn't her, that she wasn't
Speaker 1: responsible for that article about Lively being canceled, but they
Speaker 1: left that out in Blake's complaint.
Speaker 2: Well, we know what this is all going to come
Speaker 2: down to. What no one's gonna work with Clively anymore? Well,
Speaker 2: I don't think who would work with Baldoni. It doesn't
Speaker 2: matter innocent or guilty or whatever. Who's going to work
Speaker 2: with these people that are obviously litigious.
Speaker 1: No, I don't. I don't disagree. This isn't good for anyone,
Speaker 1: and it's also not good for these publicists. I mean,
Speaker 1: it makes everyone look bad. It looks like a smear campaign.
Speaker 1: This movie there is and that's another question, like how
Speaker 1: are you going to make this movie? You can't, You can't.
Speaker 1: He owns the rights to the I believe he owns
Speaker 1: the rights to the.
Speaker 2: You can't you can't do a sequel because the chemistry
Speaker 2: is not there people watching it as long as assuming
Speaker 2: all this surfaces, it'd be hard to watch a movie
Speaker 2: knowing they hate each other when they're supposed to be
Speaker 2: acting like they're in love or whatever the story is.
Speaker 2: That's a tough one, and that sucks for Colleen Hooper
Speaker 2: who had an opportunity to have a big movie on
Speaker 2: the silver screen and then now so everyone's fighting in
Speaker 2: the kitchen. Yeah, that sucks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, the only way this movie could be
Speaker 1: made is if he sells it to another production company.
Speaker 2: But then he's in the movie. You said, yeah, he's
Speaker 2: in a movie.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, they can't be in a movie together. So
Speaker 1: there's never going to be a sequel unless it's completely
Speaker 1: different actors and he sells it to another production company,
Speaker 1: and then I don't know if people are invested in it,
Speaker 1: because now you have different people and.
Speaker 2: It might be very well delayed, you know, actually far
Speaker 2: out Blake wanting to produce it herself and star in
Speaker 2: it and then finding someone to take him, right, Reynolds, Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's what Yeah, okay, wow, Well what I learned is
Speaker 2: I need to now make sure. I have a third
Speaker 2: person in my production company. So when I do a
Speaker 2: film with Sophia Bergara, Carmen Electra, I need to have
Speaker 2: someone on set, right, Yeah, and you are not allowed
Speaker 2: in the room if there's any complaints. Okay, that was
Speaker 2: bad on Ryan Reynolds Port.
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk a little bit about the backlash
Speaker 1: that Justin Baldoni has faced amid all these Blake lively claims.
Speaker 1: First of all, a lot of A list actors, actresses
Speaker 1: came out in support of Blake.
Speaker 2: I would say, Blake's the bigger star. Well, no one
Speaker 2: knows Baldoni, right, I mean.
Speaker 1: Right? And Also, let's be honest. The people that are
Speaker 1: coming out in support of her, did they read the complaint?
Speaker 2: Did they read No?
Speaker 1: No, they're just saying I like Blake. I'm coming out
Speaker 1: and support of Blake. So popularity, it's a popularity contest.
Speaker 1: She's always going to win the popularity contest. Also, let's
Speaker 1: just go back a little bit to the publicist and
Speaker 1: supposedly this takedown of Blake, which is what her complaint
Speaker 1: is about. Here's where it gets muddled. How can you
Speaker 1: tell the difference between crisis pr for planting stories or
Speaker 1: reaching out to you know, media outlets to get negative
Speaker 1: stories out there, and an organic just negativity against Blake
Speaker 1: because of her own actions. How do you It's hard
Speaker 1: to differentiate. I think a lot of the negative press
Speaker 1: surrounding her had to do with her own demeanor when
Speaker 1: she was marketing the movie. And then there were you know,
Speaker 1: old interviews at resurface where you know, there was the
Speaker 1: one reporter that said congratulations on your little bump, because
Speaker 1: she had just announced that she was pregnant, and she
Speaker 1: looks at the reporter and goes, congratulations on your little bump.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was so it was cringey. I couldn't
Speaker 1: even watch it. It was so bad. So how much
Speaker 1: is I think she was embarrassed by the negative reaction
Speaker 1: to her in the public. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people were going against her. They were talking about how
Speaker 1: she wasn't marketing the movie properly, how she was glazing
Speaker 1: over the whole domestic violence situation. She didn't look good.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of articles out her that were negative,
Speaker 1: and I think her way of getting back at that
Speaker 1: is to blame Justin and his team for planting those
Speaker 1: instead of taking any accountability for maybe it was some
Speaker 1: things that you did yourself.
Speaker 2: Some woman in my life do that. They point the
Speaker 2: finger at me. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: All right. So the backlash that Justin Baldoni has faced,
Speaker 1: Baldoni's talent agency w m E, dropped him as a
Speaker 1: client immediately when the complaint.
Speaker 2: Was But that's normal, right, Well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: They represent Blake and Ryan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they picked Aside, They clearly picked up, clearly
Speaker 2: picked Aside. Oh wow, I thought like it was it
Speaker 2: was just representing him and they dropped him just kind
Speaker 2: of like we don't want to go there. But you're
Speaker 2: saying they they said, will continue to represent Lively and
Speaker 2: Reynolds and not well the bigger stars. Right, there's probably
Speaker 2: there's certainly a lot more money involved in representing Lively
Speaker 2: in Reynolds and Reynolds never turns down the script, so
Speaker 2: they'll do all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: So Deadline reported that the decision that the decision was
Speaker 1: made by wm E leadership and was partly due to
Speaker 1: Lively's lawsuit. I mean, let's be honest here, it's not
Speaker 1: partly due to the lawsuit. It's one hundred percent because
Speaker 1: of the lawsuit. Baldoni was awarded at the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four Vital Voices Solidarity Awards, which is an awards program
Speaker 1: that honors remarkable men who have shown courage and compassion
Speaker 1: and advocating on behalf of women and girls worldwide. On
Speaker 1: December twenty third, Vital Voices announced they rescinded the award
Speaker 1: and alerted Baldoni on the decision amid the legal drama. See,
Speaker 1: I don't like that people are are making decisions about
Speaker 1: who's right and who's wrong before everything has come out,
Speaker 1: before he's allowed to lead his own case. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: we all tend to do that to some degree. But
Speaker 1: the publicist company definitely did that. Oh yeah, until he
Speaker 1: claims in his countersuit that and I don't know. This
Speaker 1: is just alleged that at a premiere of a movie
Speaker 1: that Ryan Reynolds went up to one of the representatives
Speaker 1: of this of WM and was like, you have to
Speaker 1: drop Baldoni.
Speaker 2: So and I don't know, probably, I mean.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there was pressure. Baldoni hosted the podcast Man
Speaker 1: Enough alongside author Liz Plank. On December twenty third, Plank
Speaker 1: announced her departure from the show after four years. She
Speaker 1: wrote in a statement obtained by people. We all deserve better,
Speaker 1: and I know that together we can create it. I
Speaker 1: will have more to share soon as I continue to
Speaker 1: process everything that has happened. In the meantime, I will
Speaker 1: continue to support everyone who calls out injustice and holds
Speaker 1: the people standing in their way accountable. Lastly, in the
Speaker 1: wake of Lilly's Lively's lawsuit, Elizabeth Day, a host of
Speaker 1: the podcast How to Fail, deleted an episode where she
Speaker 1: interviewed Baldoni about it ends with Us. I have made
Speaker 1: the decision to remove the recent How to Fail interview
Speaker 1: with Justin Donate from all platforms while the distressing allegations
Speaker 1: made against him and Blake Lively's recent lawsuit are fully investigated.
Speaker 1: Every individual has a right to a safe workplace. Every
Speaker 1: woman has the right to dignity in that workplace. Every
Speaker 1: form of abuse should be called out, and I salute
Speaker 1: the individuals who have the courage to do so. Here's
Speaker 1: my question, if Blake were really we're talking about Blake Lively,
Speaker 1: if she were truly reasonably and really uncomfortable, why would
Speaker 1: she sue a year later?
Speaker 2: Oh, it is a fair question, but sometimes it takes time,
Speaker 2: and sometimes people don't want to But then they can't.
Speaker 2: Maybe they think they're going to walk it off right,
Speaker 2: then they can't get over it, so then they want
Speaker 2: to file. Then they have to find an attorney.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't seem to you.
Speaker 2: I never think that time is an absolute defense. It's
Speaker 2: like it makes it's a fair question, like if there's
Speaker 2: a violent situation and someone waits a couple of years
Speaker 2: to reap it, Well, there are reasons.
Speaker 1: Here's just my takeaway. She accuses him of retaliating against
Speaker 1: her by hiring this pr firm because of the allegations
Speaker 1: that she made. However, when she files her complaint simultaneously
Speaker 1: with the New York Times article, which kind of cherry
Speaker 1: picks what text messages it's using, she's doing the exact
Speaker 1: same thing that she claims that he's doing. She's clearly
Speaker 1: going after his character and reputation. That's just my opinion.
Speaker 2: They both have dirty hands, yeah, or unclean hands, both
Speaker 2: of them, And to some degree, he was preemptively trying
Speaker 2: to address things publicly, which probably made it worse because
Speaker 2: maybe it never would a surface because they were just
Speaker 2: kind of hr complaints for lack of better words, right
Speaker 2: in the beginning, and then he now makes it a
Speaker 2: bigger issue, or at least enough for her to think,
Speaker 2: what the hell's he doing to me? So then she,
Speaker 2: you know, fires back, and now it's just all over
Speaker 2: the place. So they're both in a way, in a way,
Speaker 2: there both had some degrees of unprofessionalism. Yep, the public
Speaker 2: opinion is on lively side. So far, you had Hoover,
Speaker 2: who is the author. You had the PR firm, right.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not a PR firm, it's their management firm.
Speaker 2: Management firm they are. Then you have the New York
Speaker 2: Times that didn't really help them.
Speaker 1: No, it didn't help them at all, help them at all.
Speaker 2: No, And then it's pretty it's pretty bad.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Ryan Reynolds is you know, he's got some leverage. I'm sure.
Speaker 1: Talk about Ryan Reynolds for a little bit, because he
Speaker 1: was involved in the film. According to Justin Baldoni's suit
Speaker 1: against The New York Times, if you read the whole thing,
Speaker 1: he does make so when they went to do press,
Speaker 1: I never understood this, and I tried to understand it. It
Speaker 1: doesn't really lay it out completely, but something happened so
Speaker 1: that when it was press time for this movie it's
Speaker 1: now being released, they would not be together Apparently Blake
Speaker 1: would not allow Justin Baldoni to be at the premiere
Speaker 1: of the movie. Was she banned him according to him.
Speaker 2: But at this time point in time, there was no
Speaker 2: legal proceedings file, nothing like that, and no one internal
Speaker 2: thing right.
Speaker 1: And that's where I don't understand where the breakdown happened.
Speaker 1: Because she made her grievances known on January fourth, they
Speaker 1: put it in writing, they finished the movie.
Speaker 2: They did what they could to accommodate her issues, right.
Speaker 2: They finished the movie. The movie wraps on February ninth.
Speaker 2: Then they go into the editing process. Here's where I
Speaker 2: think the breakdown took place. Blake wanted to take over
Speaker 2: the movie. She wanted to edit the movie herself. Apparently
Speaker 2: she allowed he allowed her to come into the editing bay.
Speaker 2: It went from like a couple times editing too. I
Speaker 2: think she fully took over. Then there ends up being
Speaker 2: two versions of the movie. There ends up being an
Speaker 2: editor's cut, which is Baldoni's cut. How does that happen?
Speaker 2: How does an actor just walk into an editing room
Speaker 2: and be like, excuse me, and then they start editing.
Speaker 2: I mean, don't she have people that are professionals that
Speaker 2: that have that experience, that know what to do, and
Speaker 2: they said, he just have some lady to walk in
Speaker 2: that says like, you know, cut this out and do that.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's weird.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: So how do they let that slip?
Speaker 1: I think because she has so much power that she
Speaker 1: basically was like, I want to edit scenes myself. I
Speaker 1: want to do this. I think she has Ryan Reynolds
Speaker 1: backing her, and.
Speaker 2: This can't be normal. I mean it's not like Kevin Costner,
Speaker 2: where he's he's done a million things directing and editing,
Speaker 2: where it's like he might chime in and then the
Speaker 2: others say, yeah, you know, this is Kevin Costning, like
Speaker 2: they want to pick his brain, they want his input.
Speaker 2: This is like some actress that I don't even know
Speaker 2: what she's done. What she done.
Speaker 1: She was in Gossip Girl, She's been in.
Speaker 2: A lot of us, done things, but she's just in
Speaker 2: front of the screen. I mean she she walks into
Speaker 2: the I think she has some producing credits, But so
Speaker 2: what happened? This is where I think the tension just
Speaker 2: escalates off the charts. He includes several text messages between
Speaker 2: him and editors where the editors are reaching out to
Speaker 2: Justin Baldoni basically offering yeah, no, they're offering him support,
Speaker 2: basically saying, we're so sorry this is happening to you.
Speaker 2: Just focus on the movie. Just fo Yeah, okay, So
Speaker 2: the editors are kind of like so that implies like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we know, she's kind of like dictating the terms here.
Speaker 2: We got your back, like just keep doing what you're doing, right,
Speaker 2: and we're not okay with it? Like right.
Speaker 1: So then eventually, or apparently according to him in his
Speaker 1: New York Times suit, she fires the editors that he hired.
Speaker 1: How does she fire editor I don't know and here
Speaker 1: and hires editors that Ryan Reynolds uses. She apparently also
Speaker 1: fired the composer that Wayfairer had hired and hires happen.
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's our contracts in places scope of
Speaker 2: employment and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm telling you. I think the majority of
Speaker 1: the attention is a is a hostile takeover and a
Speaker 1: power struggle. So then eventually, according again I just want
Speaker 1: to say, this is according to Justin that their ends,
Speaker 1: and it's also memorialized in these text messages that he
Speaker 1: includes in this New York Times suit, there ends up
Speaker 1: being two cuts of this movie. There's a director's cut,
Speaker 1: which is his cut, and then there's the Blake cut,
Speaker 1: which is her cut. Apparently they go to Sony and
Speaker 1: they're like, we have two versions of this movie, and
Speaker 1: Sony's like, okay, well, we'll do a focus group type
Speaker 1: of testing in whichever scores higher.
Speaker 2: That's so, what did they do that?
Speaker 1: They did according to Justin and scored higher his, But
Speaker 1: guess which one was released hers? I mean, I actually
Speaker 1: feel sorry for this professional. So then when it comes
Speaker 1: to the release of the movie, they do a premiere
Speaker 1: and apparently he was not allowed at the premiere period.
Speaker 1: How did hers get released? Because I think she I
Speaker 1: think she agreed initially to release whichever one tested higher,
Speaker 1: and then I think she were nigged on it later
Speaker 1: after they came back with the results.
Speaker 2: And said no, sorry again at least according to your understanding. Again,
Speaker 2: she has a leverage, and she's like, Rich, don't believe
Speaker 2: your I think according to I'm doing this right.
Speaker 1: According to him, she basically would refuse to market the
Speaker 1: movie or refuse to do things if people did not
Speaker 1: if they didn't release her version. I think she banned
Speaker 1: him from the premiere, but then I think he had
Speaker 1: to fight really hard to be able to be there.
Speaker 1: And then he was allowed to go to the premiere,
Speaker 1: but he could not arrive at the same time as her,
Speaker 1: He couldn't be on the red carpet the same time
Speaker 1: as her, he couldn't go to the after party. And
Speaker 1: apparently he and his friends and his family were banned
Speaker 1: to some like makeshift area where they were in some
Speaker 1: holding cell because they couldn't be on the red carpet
Speaker 1: the same time as her, and things like that. This is,
Speaker 1: according to him, and.
Speaker 2: No one's going to want to work with her again. Difficult.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I honestly, after reading his
Speaker 1: complaint that he filed against The New York Times, I
Speaker 1: felt really badly for him.
Speaker 2: I did.
Speaker 1: That's just my takeaway based upon what I've read so far. Again,
Speaker 1: clearly the New York Times is going to file a
Speaker 1: response and it open.
Speaker 2: You're not invalidating her complaints because you're saying her plaint
Speaker 2: complaints were addressed.
Speaker 1: Her complaints were addressed.
Speaker 2: I feel like it was formalized, everything was on track
Speaker 2: to support her and whatever her needs and issues and complaints.
Speaker 2: And then they finished filming without issues, right, I wouldn't
Speaker 2: work with her.
Speaker 1: Well, so if she wants to start and I'm not.
Speaker 2: Reading any scripts now, you're not. No. But then again,
Speaker 2: no one's gonna want to work with him either. I mean,
Speaker 2: this has become the fire. There's too much of an issue.
Speaker 2: And it's also like Colo Baldoni White letting people walk
Speaker 2: into the editing room and just taking over and firing
Speaker 2: your people. That makes no sense.
Speaker 1: I don't think he had I don't think he felt
Speaker 1: like he had recourse, and I can't in a lot
Speaker 1: of if I.
Speaker 2: Walked into bra was editing. Excuse me? I did a
Speaker 2: focus group. When I listen to it, We're gonna do
Speaker 2: my editing version? Could you more less Emily? Less emily?
Speaker 2: Thanks a lot?
Speaker 1: I was like, could it make me look good?
Speaker 2: Please? Oh wow? That yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, So you guys, this is a very interesting story.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you've been following it like I have,
Speaker 1: I would love to know your opinions on it. There
Speaker 1: to come, and there's there's so much more to come.
Speaker 1: Because these are all initial filings. The Baldoni still has
Speaker 1: to file a response to her complaint and the civil
Speaker 1: complaint and the federal complaint. New York Times has to
Speaker 1: file a response to his libel suit, and also Brian Friedman,
Speaker 1: his Baldoni's attorney, has also said he's going to sue
Speaker 1: Blake personally and all the text messages are going to
Speaker 1: come out between the two of them.
Speaker 2: The cause action for his complaint against her, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I would say some type of intentional. I don't know
Speaker 1: that they'll pile on as many causes of action I'm
Speaker 1: sure as they can. And also has.
Speaker 2: Got a lot of money those dead pockets there also,
Speaker 2: I will guess or I will say that I think
Speaker 2: there'll be a lawsuit against Stephanie works.
Speaker 1: That's just me guessing that I don't know anything. But
Speaker 1: she is the one who I believe released all the private,
Speaker 1: confidential text messages. And I'm sure that's another thing.
Speaker 2: Where is the sacina selectively? Right?
Speaker 1: Probably selectively? But I would like to see this subpoena.
Speaker 1: But I have not seen a subpoena yet, so I'm
Speaker 1: assuming it's some type of friendly subpoena where she probably said, Hey,
Speaker 1: I have all this information. I would love to turn
Speaker 1: it over to you, so you know, if you slip
Speaker 1: me a subpoena, I'm happy to comply something. Give me
Speaker 1: a reason to give you all this information. So this
Speaker 1: is a messy, messy, muddled situation.
Speaker 2: Too many people with too much money and too many opportunities.
Speaker 1: Too much power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we will. I'm never going to get over
Speaker 2: the walking into the editing or being step aside.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know exactly what happened, clearly what you said, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm saying according to his complaint against The New York Times,
Speaker 1: he does claim that basically she took over editing and
Speaker 1: there there ends up being two versions of the film.
Speaker 1: How does that happen unless she edited her version. Well,
Speaker 1: we know it's the Rynolds version, the right, the Ryan version.
Speaker 1: So all right, guys, thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: If you get the opportunity to go back and listen
Speaker 1: to our Menindez podcast, we will always keep you updated
Speaker 1: on that because that's an ongoing case. And also we
Speaker 1: will keep you updated on the Blake Lively and just
Speaker 1: a Baldoni case because I feel like we are just
Speaker 1: at the tip of the iceberg on this and that
Speaker 1: there is going to be a lot more that comes out,
Speaker 1: So we will definitely follow that. So thanks for listening.
Speaker 2: Thank you,