GAME OVER!? Blake’s Lively’s Case SHREDDED By New Justin Baldoni Filing!? Lawyer Explains

GAME OVER!? Blake’s Lively’s Case SHREDDED By New Justin Baldoni Filing!? Lawyer Explains

Is Blake Lively done? Ron Zambrano is here to break down this monumental motion for summary judgement. Welcome to Popcorn Planet. I am Andy Signor. So glad to have you back, Ron. Welcome back to the show. Ron Zambrano, employment lawyer out in Hollywoods to celebrities. You know this stuff. You deal with this stuff a lot. Yes, I deal with this stuff all the time. Uh unfortunately, I’m on the receiving end of these as these as these are typically done by defendants. Uh, but I know this stuff a lot and this is a massive motion that is typically only 20 pages. Uh, and I am I don’t envy Blake’s attorneys at all. Well, just so people who are unfamiliar because this dropped last night. It’s a lot to go through. There were hundreds of exhibits. Uh, lots of coming in, but we’ve we’ve skimmed through and recapped as best we can as has Ron, but we’re going to be reporting on this in days to come, I imagine. So, but just overall this is it felt to me, Ron, from what we’ve gathered so far, what we’ve read through, a solid summary. Really felt like it was written towards Lyman, just technically backed with citations and just undisputed stuff. Uh, did you get that vibe from what you’ve gathered? Was this well written? Yes, this is incredible legal writing. Uh, it’s incredibly cited. It is it is a thorough piece of legal work, a law in motion work. um very successful people already on on the on on this uh caption of course, but this is an incredible it’s 49 pages and it reads very well and as long as whoever has to rule on this is captured and it is it’s very capturing. I mean it reads even the introduction, right? It it reads like a story and that is that is the the balance and and the art of writing legally is not only to get your legal point across but to keep attention of the reader and they do it in this intro. It’s amazing. Well, they do a really good job here. Right in the beginning, they talk about the context, right? That the theme kills the harassment claim basically because they hammer over and over again the movie’s sexual nature. It’s adult themed. It’s based on a book with explicit scenes. It’s being crafted collaborately. Uh and they and every incident she complains about happens within the creative context. Uh which Lyman’s mentioned a lot. And and they frame it a lot by saying isolated, minor, not targeted or gender, quickly resolved, never repeated. So this is all very strong points. Again, like they say, the context of collaborating to make a central provocative film, which they hammer this out throughout, that’s clearly on purpose. Yes. Yeah. That’s a that’s a theme of not only this motion, but if it happens to get to trial, if parts of this case survive after this motion, it’ll be part of their theme, and I think it’s a very good theme to keep repeating to the jury. So, the next they also destroy the causation for retaliation. Uh they list all the intervening events that sort of cause this, right? The we’ve talked about this, you and I, how Blake took creative control. You’ve said it’s in our trailer that if anybody took control lost anything, it was Justin, right? Fighting over credits, cutting him out of the edit, excluding him from his own premiere, putting him in the basement, disparaging him with his agents, stirring bad press herself with her PR people. I mean, Blake burying him right with the New York Times piece, which she was ultimately I I feel very clearly was manipulating with the sham lawsuit, etc. So, this is another pretty dead point to rights, is it not? It is so context matters and that is actually something important from the plaintiff’s side. So for for Lively now she has to basically try her case on paper saying well yes under California law, New York law the totality of the circumstances matter but please avoid looking at all these things where I was very assertive and maybe and it’s a good argument by Valdon’s team. She is the cause of some of her own damage, right? The New York Times piece, it is what caused everything. The CRD complaint being done under the opices of of, you know, supposedly confidential but being leaked. Like most of this stuff, at least initially and perhaps through today, is stuff that she caused on her own. And they’re pointing this out. Like, listen, when it was brought up to us, we fixed it. All this other stuff is kind of her fault. There’s another big part I want to get because you’re going to know this better than most, but the fact that she worked as an independent contractor yet no contract was ever formed. Uh they go throughout this in this section with a lot of sort of employment jungle, you know, junk jargon, but that basically the the council circulated a draft anticipated long form agreement between it ends with the with the production companies and Black Inc. The actor loan out agreement which was not she never signed it. Uh the draft conditions predestined included full execution of the agreement receive of executive document known as the inductment merger clause. Anyway, uh but uh the con the entire agreement between the parties, a provision prohibiting special or consequential damages, standard terms, including blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Uh how does this affect what’s actually going to happen here? Well, it actually doesn’t have too much an effect other than it makes Blake look really sloppy. Um because most actors at her caliber will have these things. all the eyes dotted and the te’s crossed, all ducks in a row before, like signing a loan out agreement. But from a from a potential legal standpoint, it will make it easier for Lyman to go, listen, you may not have rights as an employee because you really are an independent contractor, which is a great point to bring up to Baldoni. And what I love about I mean by Baldon’s attorneys and what I love about the way and you can you can really see it through the table of context a lot of the arguments are this didn’t happen and the next one even that did happen it you know this is another problem and if those two things happen this is another problem it’s such it really is an attack after attack after attack it is so well written he’s they’ve given the judge so many ways to carve out or potentially dismiss the entire complaint well so yeah because she’s in control. She they’re proving she was negotiating things. She was moving locations. She was demanding script changes, edit power, refusing to sign contracts, right? But then as they per there was no uh ALA actor loan ever executed, which is pretty serious. The contract writer was was not an independent contract. It only exists to be folded into the executive ALA. So there was no consideration from Blake, meaning it’s void. Uh and it requires a 30 days to cure. She gave neither. I mean, but all this is, you know, technical, but this is all very important given the employment nature of it all and what her accusations are. Correct. Yes, it gives the ability. So everything is context, right? So a lot of harassment claims, typical harassment claims really are egregious because things come from someone with power down to someone without power, right? It’s like, you know, the CEO asking out the receptionist out to lunch. It’s that type of power dynamic. Here you don’t have that dynamic. In fact, it’s kind of flipped. Blake herself was really asserting so much control. And Baldoni, I think in reality, kind of knew this is an opportunity for me to to use this as a springboard later. I’m not being harmed, at least not until the premiere. That’s fine. But she is the one with power. So that dynamic has kind of flipped on its head through this argument going like, you know who the aggressor was? This is what they’re really saying. You know who the aggressor was? It was lively. It was not Baldo. the aggressor in this situation was was lively and anything she complained about was part of the creative process and even we even if we really didn’t technically legally have to fix it, we addressed it. We whether we addressed it and made took it seriously or we addressed it and try to amilarate things. This is this is part of the the narrative, right, that is being uh done through this motion that I think will be repeated if if if some of the claims survive, which is not only, hey, uh this is a sexually charged workplace, not workplace, but thematic uh creative space because of the film, but also the plaintiff’s the one with most of the power throughout this whole story. And I think that’s so such a good way to put it, which may actually technically here be against her interest for purposes of the harassment claim itself. Uh so there there’s so much going on, but I want to get to sort of they get to this the smear campaign and how they they they do hit how is organic, no bots. A lot of the evidence that we’re getting with texts confirm that as we see the chats between Melissa, Nathan, everybody else there that you see uh multiple times Justin pushing back. This isn’t us, right? and Melissa sort of confirming absolutely not. We would never do that. Reiterating over and over again how organic this campaign was actually was. Uh and how, you know, Blake caused the backlash herself. Um and they also are never caught spreading false stories. Uh there’s several parts of this where like it’s not, you know, he’s not he’s allowed to put positive stories about himself out into the press. Uh, so again, it’s not illegal for Boni to promote positive content about himself or truthful narratives of various events that Lively’s reputation may have suffered as a result of her own ill-advised public statements and actions. This is despite about Hollywood reputations, not genuine legal wrongs. It does not belong in court. The kind of like an amazing shot back at himself even, right? He’s admitting, whoa, this isn’t a thing. This is egos enough already. I mean, how strong is this in your opinion? It’s really strong and I think it’s worth um explaining to the audience what is this motion. So what what this motion says is Baldon’s attorney is saying, “Listen, judge, we want you to believe everything that’s admissible that that is not objectionable under hearsay, but that’s admissible that Lively is saying, even things she’s saying herself, we want you to believe her, judge. And even and all the evidence that is admitted, admissible and authenticated that isn’t like various layers of hearsay. Please believe her, judge. And even if you believe her and you view it in the light light most favorable to Blake, she cannot meet one or more elements of each of her claims. And that’s it. That’s all it is. And if the judge goes, you know what? I’ I’m reading the evidence. I’ve read the arguments and I see that there is no possible dispute as to an element. You cannot bring that claim. And on what you’re asking us now or asking me rather about this particular defamatory statement is that now Lively has to to survive. Lively has to bring up evidence that Baldoni in fact was or his team was intentionally putting bad press about her. And the problem is it probably doesn’t exist other than conjecture which is what you’re going through right in your case. Like we just think they’re just not being honest. That’s not good enough for purposes of trial. Remember, we’ve always been talking about there’s a separate there’s a separate level of what can be discovered, but it’s it’s a much tighter rules for purposes of what’s admissible at trial. So, now we’re at what can be admitted at trial. And her fear and her gut and or the attorney’s guts is not good enough. She has to bring something for the judge to be like, “Okay, this is admissible.” And the jury can decide whether Baldon’s emails are good enough for for for his position or this one evidence that perhaps maybe Baldoni was trying to do something intentionally negative in the press, but we haven’t seen it. Yeah. They then get into like the fact that, okay, she suffered backlash, but they make it very clear finally really putting it clear that her own missteps were the significant driver in that response. They start putting out the examples about how she was cross-promoting during a film about DV, etc., etc. Uh, and then they they get into this with sort of how they smear again and they get into the sham litigation, how she used a fake planif, organized a subpoena to to seize Abel’s phones, feed it to the New York Times, dismiss the case. This is all litigation abuse, is it not? This is all finally in a in a thing that can be used for Lyman to finally take it, you know, take seriously. No. So, so yes, and I agree with you. It it is. But what’s what the reason I’m laughing is that they they didn’t need to put this in here for purposes of of their their uh legal argument. They’re just piling on here. I mean, this is a pile on at this point. Is it relevant? Will Judge Lyman even be able to I mean, it seems like it should be. Or is this sort of like a cherry on top of Lyman? I mean, because there’s a part of me that this is so good it makes Lyman look really bad. Like, how did this circus continue to go on tour so long? No. Well, again, discovery rules are much more lax than evidentiary at trial rules. So, Lyman is Lyman up to this point like I’m going to let you guys play within the rules, but he’s I think he’s going to apply the correct um trial level standards here because he has to. And with the purposes of this, this is absolutely a cherry on top. We’re like, we’re just reminding you that they created a fake lawsuit to present evidence before the court and now that should be ignored. And I think it’s a very good reminder. So they they they do a whole um uh issue about how they are hugging everybody. I’m curious um that there be no respect in hugging and how that that’s literally what it seems to be uh the the complaint. But then you know okay so so Justin and Jamie are hugging people. They even provided evidence of the crew members and cast coming to hug Justin. I I I guess like my point is like as someone who deals with this type of law, etc., etc. like is that really going to be able to be used as harassment if that’s the worst of her claim is that there was too much hugging and it made us uncomfortable. Uh it’s I think as a matter of law this is not sufficient for harassment. Um because one of the one of the aspects are is that the conduct has to be unwelcomed. So there’s no evidence at least from what you just showed me and and from when writing about the hugging that it was not unwelcomed. So what’s next? cuz there there’s so much to more and we’ll we’ll have more questions and please keep your questions coming for Ron so we can go through it. I guess why didn’t Blake file her own motion? Is that normal? Yeah. Should that be a red flag to anybody, the fact that she didn’t? And then I want to talk about what do you think this is actually going to do? Do you think Lyman will throw this out? But before we get to that, why didn’t Blake file her own? So yeah, that’s a great that’s a great great question. So normally the plaintiff, again, Lively is the plaintiff here. Plaintiffs do not file these types of motions um because it’s they want to get to trial. The only way you would file as a plaintiff you would file a motion like this is if you want the judge to is if you have so much evidence that the judge would have to just agree with you that there is no trial issue of fact or genuine dispute of material fact. Depends where you are. But basically what does that mean? That means that the evidence by both sides do not the judge says there’s no point to give this to a jury. There there’s no dispute as to this element. You’re saying something the other side cannot dispute it. There’s no dispute. I’m not going to waste the jury’s time. I’m just going to make a decision because there is no dispute as to this fact. A lively didn’t have that. And it typically most in in most defendants won’t I mean excuse me plaintiffs will have that because the defense are bringing up so much crap to to to dispute things like no we we deny and here’s why and here’s why and here’s why. It’s very very rare super rare where plaintiffs bring their own motions. That’s why she did her motion to dismiss on the cross complaint, right? She’s able to attack it that way which is not technically this case. It’s a different stand I mean this type of motion. It’s a different standard. Typically, plaintiffs don’t bring their own motions to dismiss because the defense has brought up enough to create a triable issue of fact or given enough for a jury to decide. The judges are saying, “Is there enough here that it should bother the jury?” There’s not enough. It can’t go forward. There is enough. There is. And that’s why on the um on the topic we were talking before, I’m trying to remember it real quickly. Oh, with regards to the uh the defamation, right, that uh with regards to the news series, Lively has to find ad admissible evidence that Baldoni was doing something to smear her and it so far we haven’t seen it. So now she has to bring it from somewhere. It cannot be conjecture. Conjecture is not good enough. It’s just not. So that may be something the judge is like jury’s not going to hear that. Well, and before we even get to what’s going to happen with the wind, but another point I want to bring up, they they mentioned that Sony Angie whatever here encouraged Baldon to shoot an R-rated FL film. In fact, here’s Sony for her. I will update Sony. You were going to try and get as much tasteful hot X as you can. Uh, you find out we are PG-13. Will Colleen be okay? And does she think her readers will be okay? So, you have Sony sort of pushing explicit scenes with Lively, Colleen Hoover, etc. is a woman at Sony. Uh, does this hurt or help Plague’s cause? It Well, it hurts Plague’s cause because it really helps Baldon’s cause, right? Baldon is like, to the extent there was any sexual energy in this work, it’s because it’s the nature of the work, people that were funding this, people of the creative process, people that wanted the film to be our it’s not me violating the rights of you as an employee, assuming you are an employee. It’s the nature of the work and the context matters. So, and is is Sony at all could they be liable for any of this? Can Justin go after Sony for sort of not picking a side and sort of throwing them under the bus? No. Right. No. No. I mean, Sony’s just making creative decisions. And again, creative decisions within the context of truly creative um the creative industry is protected under the First Amendment and free speech. Um or else they’ll be I mean, you know how ligious we are in California. Can you imagine in Hollywood? Yeah. Insane. So, what do you think is going to ultimately happen at the end of this? Will this cause You’ve seen how Lyman sort of reported on things. Do you think this could actually get Lyman to throw it out? I I think Lyman will be throwing out a lot of claims. I don’t know which ones, especially I haven’t really read the later ones, the later arguments. we should do, Andy, we should we should have a very um a longer interview once we see the opposition to see if if she gave herself a chance and u because we can see and a lot of lawyers and I’m happy to bring other lawyers to talk about is does this create a genuine issue of dispute or is she reaching so far the judge is not going to let her give her the benefit of the doubt and it will be punted. um it will be punted. But I I I think the whole thing about the smear campaign where there’s no evidence that he was trying to do anything negative to her. In fact, there’s evidence that he was trying to make sure it wasn’t him. Um she has to find something somewhere and it can’t be just uh well this is what I feel and my conjecture and speculation. It has to be admissible evidence. Now she’s got she’s being hit with a higher standard. It can’t just be I this is what I feel and it’s an open fishing season. It has to be admissible evidence. And now this is really about, you know, putting your money where your mouth is. So she’s going to file an opposition then to the motion. So we’ll wait for that. And I agree. I’d love to have you back. I I One thing Melture said, he couldn’t join us. I I want to have you both. But he did say this. I’m curious what you think. It’s difficult to obtain summary judgement because there are usually facts that need to be determined by a jury. The judge does not have the power to make the findings on fact of complaint unless the parties wave the right to a jury trial. Do you think that is is that true or you’re just saying some of these are just going to be thrown out because it’s just weird to me because it seems shouldn’t Blake have to find the facts like even I feel this in my own case too. It’s like I’m constantly overd delivering and giving things that I should have never had to be bothered with. But then it’s like how how long does Blake get to ring the sh bell to sort of get this? Yes. Whatever you need, Miss Lively. Like when is it enough? And and and is it true or can this judge have enough? Yes, you’ve proven here. Blake has not proven enough. Uh, agreed. So, you and Belchure are correct. The judge cannot make a factual determination. So, what that really means is when the opposition is filed and Lively goes, I, you know, Baldon says this, this is my response factually to that. If her response isn’t good enough in the sense that it is not admissible evidence or it doesn’t really do a factual dispute, the judge can say that it does not create a dispute. I’m not I the judge not and not you know making a factual like I believe Baldon over you lively. I’m just saying Lively’s evidence doesn’t even create a dispute. You’re talking about something else or you’re or you’re citing evidence that I will never admit at trial. the judge can make a legal finding that there that it doesn’t connect enough to create a dispute. And to answer your question specifically, is it enough enough? Now, um, Lively has to basically try her case on paper, right, with admissible evidence. She her response has to be, this is what I’m going to present at trial, judge. Please don’t kick this out. She does have to give that at some point beforehand. Yes, that’s her opposition. Her opposition has to give it. She it cannot be it has to be admissible evidence. I have emails. I have text message. I have witnesses. This is not only like I have witnesses and I’ll bring them later. I have witnesses and here’s a declaration from that witness. She has to basically try her case on paper and it cannot be this. Well, I believe I believe I believe and information belief. That is no longer good enough to oppose this. And that’s why I’m very interested to see and I’m sure people aren’t really people that aren’t in the space I’m in aren’t as excited as let’s see what she brings to oppose this because it has to matter and it has to be admissible in court. She basically has to try her case on paper to oppose this and she’s that’s going to have to happen quickly. I imagine she that’s probably due soon. That’s typically four weeks from the motion being filed and ser well the file and service are the same because it’s electronic. So, it’s typically four weeks from yesterday or today, whatever it was. But, yeah, it’s fast, especially when you’re opposing 50 pages. Uh, someone’s calendar just got cleared for three weeks, right? But then Lyman, is he going to report on this before her opposition comes out or is he going to wait? He’s going to wait. He has to wait to to Got it. Yeah. Under due process. Uh, he has to wait and then the moving party sometimes has an opportunity to reply to the opposing evidence. Um there’s probably a hearing that’s been set. Um I I didn’t see it in the papers, but uh the judge can rule on it only after getting the opposing and sometimes reply papers, but I imagine he’s now taking this to gather. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And then going to compare that to the opposition brief of were they able to overcome and prove that. Is that what I assume that the next step for the judge? Um the next step for the judge is to see if the evidence is admissible and actually disputes the assertions brought in the motion. So for instance, I keep bringing up this the smear campaign. What evidence it actually makes creates any dispute where a jury if they were to believe it would would would be hey yeah uh Baldon was creating negative press from his team. What evidence exists from that? They because they’re trying to make this whole Well, they deleted signal chats, your honor. So, we can’t prove it. Can that actually hold up? No, it won’t hold up. No, because that’s hearsay. So, they need the evidence. That’s what we’re waiting for. I agree. That’s literally what we’ve been waiting for this whole entire time, I feel like, is for Blake to finally drop some evidence. And now that she’s had the discovery, there’s no more excuses to it. Now is the time. So, in a few weeks, we will get that. I would love to get you back. We’ll do a lawyer panel. I love it. Let’s do a bigger show. So, make sure you guys hit that subscribe if you haven’t already. Hit the bell for all alerts. Uh it’s just getting juicy now. Smash that like button. We got so much to go through these docks. We will be covering this in the next few days and we’ll be live uh this week as well. So, stay tuned. I don’t know where we put this video, but we got a lot more coming. Hit the subscribe. Stay tuned. We got a lot more coming here on Popcorn Planet. And thank you, Ron. You’re welcome. Always have always fun. So much fun.

Help Support Our Documentary “It Ends With Justice: Justin Baldoni vs Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds here: http://ItEndsWithJustice.com
Watch the Trailer here: https://youtu.be/v2OGwByAIQU?si=8HfJvuD41dNH_St0

You can also become a MEMBER or Purchase New Merch here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com – All paid members will be able to see our documentaries first and all funds raised there go toward future productions!

Thumbnail images are fairuse satire created by adobe photoshop and artificial intelligence artwork.

S U P P O R T T H I S C H A N N E L:
Join, Donate, & Follow here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com or here: https://linktr.ee/AndySignore

Popcorned Planet offers commentary on the biggest Celebrity News, Pop Culture Outrage and Viral Internet Stories from all over the internet. Created and hosted by Andy Signore (as seen on Piers Morgan Uncensored) Popcorned Planet is your one stop place Daily News, Celebrity Gossip, Drama, Hollywood insight and Pop Culture Commentary.

C O N T A C T / B U S I N E S S : PopcornedPlanetTeam@gmail.com

Or Send Packages, Toys & Fan Mail To:
Andy Signore
16350 Bruce B Downs Blvd
PO Box # 48742
Tampa FL, 33647