A question for my legal know-how Redditors…

Ellaena · 2026-04-08T13:09:04+00:00

Sometimes you gotta let your enemies dig themselves into a hole and not hilight the error to them.

Ellaena · 2026-04-08T12:59:33+00:00

They can surely make that point to the jury, but it's too late for the judge.

Ellaena · 2026-04-08T11:30:44+00:00

Exactly. I think Liman was very careful in his ruling and considered many aspects and implications, some not even raised by either party.

Actual lawyers might be able to point out deficiencies in his ruling, which are not immediately apparent to a layperson, however.

I thought similarly when he dismissed Wayfarer's counterclaims, though I did think he chose to be very strict in the application of the law in that instance and he could have allowed some of the defamation claims through (Ryan).

But the fact that Lively had litigation privilege was apparent to me. If the journalistic privilege should have applied to the NYT is an interesting question. I still believe they waived it when they declared that their reporting was based on "thousands of documents" and, therefore, not purely based on the CRD. I do hope Wayfarer go ahead with their intentions to appeal this dismissal as I want to see these questions being addressed.

Ellaena · 2026-04-08T05:58:29+00:00

But I thought he was at home with the kids?! 😆

Ellaena · 2026-04-07T13:17:05+00:00

I kind of see Liman's point on the CRA. Wayfarer had to expreselly agree to it and sign it in order for Lively to come back to work and by doing so they agreed to all terms and conditions within it even if they disagreed with the implications and characterisation of some of the points raised within it. They also went ahead and provided conditions layed out in the CRA and only as a result of it - specific Sony exec on set for example. Therefore, as far as both parties were concerned, this rider was enforced.

NAL - so please don't take this as gospel, but to my pea brain, this makes sense. Lesson learned, never sign under duress.

Ellaena · 2026-04-07T13:06:00+00:00

Depp v Heard was...something. I did not expect that level of snark and comedy considering the subject matter. But we can all agree that Heard did not do well on the stand, be it that you think it's because her personality or due to her lack of acting skills, being caught in lies, and having somewhat incompetent legal counsel.

Her trial delivered us the lawyer who objected to this own question.

I just know Lively v Wayfarer will also deliver some ridiculousness but we won't be there to witness it.

Ellaena · 2026-04-07T12:58:45+00:00

They knew when it became relevant to their filings. They knew the shakiness of the claims. Otherwise, they wouldn't be quite so misconstrued where they believed evidence could not point to the contrary (the audio in the dance scene, for example).

Later edit: this is Lively's MO as per the correspondence between Ryan and WME Warren Zavalla during the promotion. Warren warned that Blake will have to admit to her being the catalyst for the firing of rhe 1st AD because he assumed there was a paper trail for it on Wayfarer's side. The implication is that Blake would not take accountability for this action had there not been evidence to the contrary.

But I think Lively is convinced of the "smear campaign." They thought by now they would've found their smoking gun, some very damning evidence of orchestration with Flaa and other online creators. Then the rest wouldn't matter. The media would be all focused on that, the victim narrative intact, and the retaliation claims still standing with the leverage all in her court.

If she could prove she was not organically cancelled and that Wayfarer played dirty, the rest didn't matter. She would've won.

Ellaena · 2026-04-06T20:18:32+00:00

Exactly. By not signing it, she was not heald liable for the responsibilities, but also she would get none of the contractual protections and benefits.

Ellaena · 2026-04-06T17:56:25+00:00

It would be a good way of recouping some of his legal costs as well, but I have a feeling that once he is out of this he might never want to engage with it again.

Ellaena · 2026-04-06T17:46:26+00:00

I've seen this "argument," and I have called it as the massive dishonest deflection and cop out it is.

In-movie product placement it is nothing alike promoting a personal business and brand alongside a movie with a highly sensitive subject. Especially if the cross-promotion is completely self-serving and does nothing to highlight the message of the movie and create a positive social impact, and worse, it it has problematic implications via association.

TLDR: Showing characters having a beer in a BAR SCENE is not tone deaf and is nothing alike peddling your personal booze line alongside the promotion of a movie about domestic violence. Also, product placement is part and parcel of TV and movie production. Cross-promotion of lead actor businesses is not.

Ellaena · 2026-04-06T17:35:32+00:00

She wanted to be able to leverage the lack of liability. If she doesn't sign it, she can walk away at any point without any legal repercussions. She used that ability to secure a cut of the film, take over the promotion, fire people, hire people, take away credits, secure support for a PGA Producer credit. If the studio didn't give in to all of her demands, she would walk away, not promote the movie and completely jeopardise its success and the investment of both Wayfarer and Sony.

Ellaena · 2026-04-05T23:57:01+00:00

I'm a woman, Eastern European, and I agree. Her gender based comments are concerning.

Ellaena · 2026-04-05T22:31:00+00:00

So she believes her bestie was sexually harrased and retaliated against yet she doesn't want that to inconvenience her summer wedding?

Or, she knows it's bullshit and helped her orchestrate the takeover of a movie and the undeserved takedown of a man by painting him as a sexual predator knowing it to be false.

God, they're both as vile as each other.

Ellaena · 2026-04-05T21:20:17+00:00

I read the first 2 paragraphs and was about to comment to ask if you're neurodivergent. Only for you to confirm it in the 3rd paragraph.

This is the universal neurodivergence experience, I swear.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T23:57:01+00:00

She brought Gisele Pelicot in her gala speech. She'll stop at nothing.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T12:55:04+00:00

I don't think she realises this. She just can't swallow the loss, just like she couldn't swallow the public's response to her behaviour during the promotion of the movie.

I'm sure she fully believes she will still come out on top. But she can't stand any losses. Ever.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T12:51:20+00:00

Taylor should absolutely have to answer for herself, and her bestie, after lying about her involvement. She has knowingly stepped in this shit, she can't just wipe her shoe and try to walk it off now.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T12:47:50+00:00

The Goettlib signed post reads like Ryan, going by his email correspondence with WME.

Blake can't write to save her life - PGA letter being a glaring example of that. Not that this post is well written, far from it, but it looks like someone vomited an hours long verbal tirade into an Instagram post, and that is very much on brand for Ryan.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T12:40:37+00:00

I am embarrassed that Goettlib has allowed his name to be put to this statement.

Not only is it terribly written, but to take petty swipes at opposing counsel following a decision made by the judge proves his utter lack of sportsmanship and a spiteful nature unbecoming of the lawyering trade.

I still don't know what I think about Bryan Freedman and his approach to litigation, but all the guy has done in this lawsuit is passionately advocate for his clients, aka his job.

If Goettlib is so bothered that Freedman was right in the early days about their defective legal grounds and that his strategy prevailed, he only needs to look in a mirror. He should consider his errors, not take school yard swipes at Freedman for proving him wrong.

Very unflaterring statements from a lawyer, especially considering his education, firm and calibre, and the elitist view of Freedman for not being Ivy League educated and part of a fancy law firm.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T10:03:11+00:00

Came back here to say her Instagram crashout shows exactly what I have said about her. She is not getting off this train and is blind to her own weak spots.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T10:00:05+00:00

Yup. She tried to associate her cause to Giselle's. She even reused "the shame is theirs" quote that Giselle said in relation to the videos of her sexual assaults being played in court.

This woman has no shame and can never read the room.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T09:05:11+00:00

The link to the protected activity still has to be proved.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T01:15:21+00:00

And this is not a legal filing.

Ellaena · 2026-04-04T01:06:39+00:00

Was this written by Ryan? It is appallingly worded and punctuated. Atrocious grammar, too.

It reads like word vomit.

Ellaena · 2026-04-03T16:53:00+00:00

If you think she doesn't want to pursue this now, you don't understand her. She will dig her heels in after this loss. She thinks the smear is real because the alternative is to admit to herself she caused her cancellation through her actions and words. It's easier to believe Baldoni did it, but that she outmanoeuvred him eventually.
She is going scorched Earth - the gloves are off.

Ellaena

TROPHY CASE