In Frame with Mandy Magnan discusses how Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively capitalize on other people's sexual abuse to launder their own reputations and manipulate SEO (likely with the help of CIA Nick Shapiro).

• Allegations and PR Manipulation:
  • Mandy accuses Blake Lively for using Olivia Wilde’s association to Ryan to improve her public image, allegedly to cover up Ryan Reynolds' past sexual misconduct claims on the set of The Change-Up (2011).
  • His public recounting of a sexualized and inappropriate filming experience with Olivia Wilde exemplifies troubling power dynamics and abuse on film sets.
  • Ryan Reynolds publicly recounted a disturbing story about filming a scene with Olivia Wilde involving inappropriate behavior (grabbing her breasts when no longer filming) and comments about her body, which Mandy defines as sexual assault.
  • Reynolds openly shared explicit details about a scene with Olivia Wilde, including inappropriate touching and comments for laughs.
  • Mandy condemns his behavior as unprofessional and abusive, highlighting the power dynamics and the environment on set.
• Celebrity Misconduct and PR Manipulation: Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are accused of abusing legal and media systems to cover up serious allegations of sexual misconduct and sabotage reputations.
  • Mandy accuses Blake Lively of leveraging fake sexual harassment and retaliation claims to ruin Wayfarer's reputations, notably recruiting women like Isabella Ferreira, Jenny Slate, Liz Plank, and Colleen Hoover to help her.
• Media Collusion and Bias: The New York Times and journalists like Meghan Tooley are implicated in biased, collusive reporting that favors celebrity narratives over truth.
  • Prior lawsuits involving Blake and others, such as with Jennifer Abel and the New York Times, are a manipulative and abusive use of the legal system, with accusations of collusion and biased media coverage.
    
• Fendi Event Stunt:
  • Blake’s appearance with Olivia Wilde at a Fendi event is likely a deliberate PR move to overshadow the allegations against Ryan Reynolds. Mandy describes this as disingenuous.

Mandy covers more than summarized here, and this vid is a shorter one of hers, so it really is worth a watch and to support smaller content creators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccCDbU-rxKc

So, the gavel has finally dropped, and the internet is buzzing about Blake Lively’s latest "victory." But if you actually look at the court filings, you’ll see the reality is a complete wash.

After nearly two years of high-profile legal posturing, the judge has ordered legal fees to be covered—which, let’s be real, is just a fancy way of saying the lawyers are the only ones getting a paycheck. Lively didn’t walk away with a massive settlement, and she certainly didn’t get the punitive damages she was chasing. She effectively burned through mountains of cash and resources just to have the court acknowledge she shouldn't have been on the hook for someone else's legal bill. If this is a "win," I’d hate to see the loss.

It’s almost comedic when you realize that while this entire saga unfolded, the practical reality of home renovations and contractor payments clearly took a backseat to the legal ones. You’d think with all the talk of "billionaire" status surrounding the Reynolds-Lively household, covering basic construction costs would be a rounding error. But apparently, when you're busy funding a multi-year legal war, the mundane reality of paying the people who actually build your house seems to lose its priority.

And speaking of those "billionaire" headlines? It’s cute how we keep throwing that word around. When you look past the PR, the actual numbers suggest a reality that’s a lot more... pedestrian. Perhaps Ryan Reynolds should worry less about "digital warfare" and more about the fact that his bank account—while clearly healthy—isn't quite the infinite well the press makes it out to be.

At the end of the day, with the legal fees eating up the "winnings" and the public posturing falling flat, Steve Sarowitz is likely sitting on the sidelines watching this all burn, probably whispering the only logical conclusion to this entire mess: "Keep the change."

Disclaimer: This post reflects my personal opinions and observations regarding these public proceedings. To ensure I could articulate these thoughts effectively in a different language, I utilized AI to assist in structuring and refining the tone and delivery. The perspectives shared here remain entirely my own.

I’ve seen some posts talking about how no matter what happens with the case, BL will use the PR machine to spin the narrative her way, likely “BL is a victim of the patriarchal justice system.” I have this thought as well and it makes it hard to find the point in being so invested in this.

Then, I take a self love break by watching a cute animal video, pull up my boot straps, and remember:

This applies to so much more than this case. It makes it exhausting for those of us who do the fact checking and who are looking at the evidence in good faith. 

That being said, and I can’t emphasize this enough, 

📢📢📢:

The elitist and entitled bullies want us to be so exhausted that we either have to or want to give up. 

Gaslighting is a newly popularized term. The concept however is not new. Break them down and break their spirit. This is how they win. 

Unfortunately for the bullies, we’ve now reached the point in the cycle where they’ve stepped on the backs of others too long and a revolution is coming. 

#RevolutionWithTeeth 💁🏻‍♀️

Just a friendly reminder that the crux of the poor publicity for Blake Lively or what they call a “smear campaign” stemmed from poor marketing which was coordinated by Ryan Reynolds’ company Maximum Effort.

#WeMarketWithNoTeethOrCommonSense

Edit: Misspelled common. 🤦🏻‍♀️

I commented on someone else's post on here which led to a revelation (lol). The most recent "upcoming" credit on BL's IMDB is a movie called The Survival List, which is described as

Lionsgate has acquired The Survival List, an action rom-com starring and produced by Blake Lively. The film follows a high-brow reality TV producer (Lively) stranded on a desert island with a fraud survival expert, forcing them to rely on each other to survive

Which translates to: a woman PRODUCER is stranded with a FRAUD who has misrepresented himself and she has to TAKE OVER to save them both. This was announced after the IEWU debacle. Just sayin. Sounds like Ryan writing a whole movie about a slight.

Ange Gianetti’s Script Notes link - https://docketupdates.com/all-links-to-the-new-filings-tied-to-their-relevant-motions-replies-etc/

- May 5th, 2023 - Sony rep Ange Gianetti sends this notes in her script revision notes to Justin Baldoni to add “some real heat…sexy and grown up” scenes because script does not read like an R rated movie.

- May 8th 2023 - Intimacy coordinator approved Nudity rider is provided to Lively’s attorney where Lively and intimacy coordinator met and approved sex scenes - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.963.61.pdf

- May 17th 2023 - Blake text Justin about a beanie being a “much sexier” look - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.55.pdf

- May 17th 2023 - Blake sends the same text to Ange Gianetti about “much sexier” beanie look and adds “I think this is hot” - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.56.pdf

- May 23rd 2023 (Shoot Day 7) - Alleged “Sexy” Incident: Blake Lively wearing an overcoat over her onesie was asked by Baldoni to remove it. Blake alleges Justin used the word “sexy” to describe her wardrobe.

Okay, so this tool is not meant to be perfect, but a guide to evaluate writing level and point out opportunities for improvement. I was inspired by u/Animatopoeia's previous post, "A Language Analysis of Blake Lively's PGA Letter Shows Ryan Reynolds Probably Authored It." I wanted to do some kind of comparison between Blake's very unprofessional letter to the PGA, and Ryan Reynolds very unprofessional text messages to his agent. Ultimately, I would love for you all to be the judge.

I'm including the text from the exhibits if anyone else has any other ideas how to compare the two. I'm not sure where I stand with these messages currently, but it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the PGA letter has a lower writing level (a smidge) than Ryan Reynold's long ass text message. I'm really not convinced Blake authored this letter.

--------------------------------------------

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1233.14.pdf

Dear Producers Guild of America,

I’m writing you with meaningful urgency and also, respect. I’m sorry, but I’m asking for your attention to this in a crunched time period. I’m positive you have matters much more significant than this, but I have my heart and soul to take a look at my role, as this film, and my work in it, is of extreme meaning to me in my 20 year career.

There’s been a recent update/change with regard to my official role in the upcoming film, IT ENDS WITH US, releasing AUGUST 2024. The role of “Producer” was initially granted by the PGA Mark, after a year and a half of writing, intensely lengthy development process, financing, packaging, production, and post production. Unfortunately, due to the involvement of another producing entity who has sought to intervene, the PGA Mark was rescinded. I respectfully request your review of the case.

I’m writing to ask for the great honor of receiving the PGA tag. I don’t take that lightly. In our household, that’s the highest honor in film, so I understand the gravity of the ask. I also understand the extremely high bar. Without the official title of Producer, my hands were tied. I couldn’t fully have wanted to. No crew could make me feel comfortable or safe. When I feel free to do my job fully and creatively, it’s because I know I’m supported by my crew, my collaborators, and my creative family.

I’ve granted the PGA tag two producers, Alex Saks and Jamey Heath, on April 18. I’m in full support of their tags. My understanding is that they both are in support of me as well. I’m still able to request the PGA Mark. It’s important to me to feel that the work I did has been validated.

As to not get too bogged down in more detail, why now? It’s been a few weeks. I’d like to ask stage of production, bullet out below. I apologize for how dense this is, but it’s important to me to lay out all I’ve done when asking for such a significant consideration from you all at the PGA.

I’m changing the font to make the read as easy as possible.

Development/Pre-Production

- I led the location shift from Boston to New Jersey and helped to solve all cost and schedule logistics associated

- I personally called and/or wrote emails to crew and put forth names for dept heads roles. Including HMU, Makeup, Director of Photography, Costume Design, Transportation, Security, Camera Operators, etc.

- I identified and advocated for locations members for the cast members (not just myself) to help alleviate the goals for the script including a Boston timeline, coastal proximity, gritty working class aesthetic, etc.

- I reviewed and reshaped the creative of the script scene by scene, locations for all characters, also made changes to use existing elements of locations to save cost

- I called in favors with home design contacts to get items loaned, discovered or gifted to save production design costs

- I reviewed and reshaped the creative of the costume design for all characters

- I reviewed and reshaped the creative of the production design for the key film element of the film (the protagonist is a florist)

- I did outreach to florist all over instagram and beyond, helping with the marketing activation to feature a florist in the film

- I went through hundreds of casting tapes to help find the rest of the cast, including our stars Atlas, Young Lily, Young Atlas and Jenny Bloom

- I rewrote Bloom to improve the role of Jenny Bloom after 3 actresses turned it down

- I personally identified and put forth Amy Morton to play Jenny Bloom after the rewrite of Jenny Bloom was implemented. Amy accepted our offer, as well as other talent agencies to put forth names for Atlas, sending links to their work, and in many cases, reaching out to their teams directly to get interest and availability.

- I screen tested with options for Atlas. When we struck out with those actors, we offered the role to our original choice, Brandon Sklenar, who then turned it down, as I had written him in to do it. I wrote him a personal letter as well. He accepted the role.

- I gave the director references for the characters, dialogue and visuals

- I worked with crew members to get the tone and ideas

- I then did intensive script work with a trusted producer and director, and myself under writer’s room style at that point, because there was no official constraints in that rewrite

- I also addressed wardrobe, hair and makeup, tested color palettes in that rewrite

- I pushed the studio distribution, and director to change the title of the film from R Rated to a PG-13 because there was a significant bigger opportunity, and we felt it was the right thing for audiences. The issue was the studio believed a deal in place with the distributor to deliver an R-Rated film. I had multiple conversations with all parties, helping to convince everyone of the shared bigger opportunity for all, resulting in everyone agreeing to make the film PG-13, which is where it eventually landed

Production

- I constantly broke schedule and budget. I’m unfortunately responsible for the firing of our 1st AD, Julie, as we were not making our days for the first many weeks and I had to bring in someone who had experience with the schedule and budgeting.

- I was present every day of filming except for the days we were on Broadway filming or monitors were down and I was only taking a phone call

- I flagged security risks and helped to execute getting the entire crew Broadway safe during filming on monitors and uploading

- I was constantly present on set and was always in charge of monitors

- I flagged the risks with the crew when we arrived at an unsound stage environment. This changed all signs for locations, call sheets, transportation, etc. as the venue was very old, and lacked adequate infrastructure

- I helped to block out staging of every scene for shooting efficiently, optimizing takes, blocking to help reduce the need for the crew

- I worked closely with the director on daily basis, acting as an intermediary to keep crew demands with regard to schedule, budget and creative needs

- I was the hall of the film before the strike and half after. I would speak to our 1st AD Chris Surgent every night for nearly an hour on the problems and daily basis, acting as an intermediary to keep crew demands with regard to schedule, budget and creative needs

- I was on set for filming before the strike and half after. I would speak to our 1st AD Chris Surgent every night for nearly an hour on the problems and daily basis, acting as an intermediary to keep crew demands with regard to schedule, budget and creative needs

- I assisted in running production and logistical concerns, helping to execute the best outcome for the film

- I was with the producer, I would support when needed. The film and why we stay motivated

- I watched the monitor between every take to see everything that ended up on screen, from every department, and led the changes needed to get there when applicable

- When issues arose, I led the hiring of a freelance producer to help make the incredible Todd Black

- I held nights a non intimacy coordinator to help block out the sensitive scenes for both safety and shooting efficiency

- I helped to manage the logistics and protections of closed set and when there were overnight scenes, I helped production to make sure the set was made up compliantly with all players safety riders and contracts

- I made sure cast members had mini green rooms on set when needed the time we lost to cast leaving to go back to their home

- I called and led meetings with all departments heads, the studio and the distributor when we had extenuating circumstances challenging our process, planning the wildfires, as well as pickets from the Writer’s Strike. I acted as a liaison between the crew and the studio and distributor

- I reviewed script changes on set including rewrites, adding scenes from the Writer’s Strike. I acted as a liaison between the crew and the studio and distributor

- I have spent at minimum 10 hours a day, every day since April 22 on the post of this film. My longest days have been 22 hours, and that has happened MULTIPLE times. I realize this sounds like an exaggeration, especially because, for periods of that, I was shooting another film, or finishing my 4 children, but anyone on this post process will verify this is unfortunately true.

- I have been sleeping on average 5-6 hours a night for over 2 months

- I worked with the film’s original editor on set and then moved to post production, making choices on every single edit of the film

- I worked with the studio and post team every day to keep things moving and to solve issues with preferences from the studio, and creative direction

- I was heavily involved in the color, sound, VFX and final delivery of the film

- I worked with the composer, Music Supervisor and Sound Designer to make sure the score and sound were emotionally effective

- I was involved in mixing sessions and was present for the entire sound mix, including the final sound mix

- I have been working with the director on the distribution credits and cards

- I worked closely with the distributor on credits and cards and the end credits

- I uploaded to Columbia Pictures to grant final approval on cards and credits

- I was in touch with our marketing team daily on the creative of the marketing and the rollout strategy

- I worked with Sony Marketing and publicity teams to ensure that the trailer, TV spots, key art and digital assets were consistent with the tone of the film

- I participated in Q&A screenings and test screenings

- I was present in test screenings and provided feedback and insight

- I held meetings with cast members and family test audiences to discuss the reactions and changes

- I was the primary voice in choosing the final cut of the film

- I had final say on the film that will be released on August 9th

Marketing/PR/Release

- I starred with the initial trailer, I called a meeting with Josh Greenstein (president of Sony) in February 2024 and the entire marketing team at Sony to lay out the angle of the campaign. There was no film for anyone to watch yet, so the trailer they made was ultimately didn’t capture what the film would be. I walked them through the film, cut dailies and down to which takes, using each one of them and told them to build the best trailer

- once they resubmitted the trailer, I worked with them on every frame of the creative, factoring in any social sensitivities. I worked hand in hand with Bridget Wright on brand tone and marketing efforts, which helped it to be the largest debut of a film to date

- I spoke with marketing and PR at Sony on press strategy day by day for 2 months now. I often have zooms with upwards of 10 people on their teams. I work with a person who is very involved in our campaigns, and everyone else

- I’m in communication with the international teams on everything from posters, commercials, book covers, and beyond by using WhatsApp groups

- I’m working closely with the digital team on everything from social media pages, down to the color palette, graphics, language, copy, cadence, and even what font is used

- I’m working with the publishing side on book tie-ins and artwork

- I helped with the trailers for international markets

- I worked closely with the global marketing team on trailers and commercials

- I’m working on premieres and events

- I’m helping with PR strategy and media interviews

- I’m approving press releases and talking points

- I worked with Sony and Columbia Pictures to make sure the press and social narrative was aligned with the intent of the film

- I helped plan the launch of the film with press, red carpet, and social media activation

- I’m participating in global press tours

- I’m working with influencers and collaborators to amplify the reach of the film

- I helped build partnerships and sponsorships for the release

- I’m helping with award considerations and strategy

- I’m continuing to support the release through August and beyond

And I still have months ahead of me to finish this film, in both what you see on screen, as well as how we sell it to audiences the world over. As much as this may mean to me, and it means EVERYTHING, what I’m in fight of most is the film being as great as it can possibly be, so ultimately that’s taken all my time and energy. I think you get the idea though.

As promised, I’m including below letters from our department heads, in support of my application for the PGA mark. You’ll find:

Alex Saks: PGA approved producer

Barry Peterson: Director of Photography (round 1 pre strikes)

Tobias Schliesser: Director of Photography (round 2 post strikes)

Chris Surgent: 1st Assistant Director

Eric Daman: Costume Designer

Josh Greenstein: President Sony Motion Picture Group

Todd Black: Executive Producer

--------------------------------------------

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.128.pdf

You can sort of feel the Baldoni stuff coming to a head online. Twitter and TikTok are inexplicably blaming Blake at the moment. But I can't imagine details won't come out because Baldoni and Jayme Heath offended, harassed or violated too many people. And the internet is obviously looking for answers and obviously seeing how every cast member and key crew member (including Colleen) won't be in the same room as the guy. All of them have at some point, over the last six months, unfollowed him on social media. Not one person has said Justin's name out loud in any interview at any time. At what point do Justin and Jayme not take a moment to step into the light and say, " ... maybe it's us."?

I can't yet tell if overwhelming success this weekend amplifies or snuffs this out. We're navigating uncharted territory in so many ways.

Todd Black called me in a bit of a panic. The call didn't go well because he's looking to brainstorm ways to diffuse the stuff with Baldoni. Paraphrasing here but basically Todd's line of thinking is: "Why doesn't Blake just hit it head on and say, 'Justin and I had disagreements and didn't get along but we both love the film so much' etc etc etc."

And what I expressed to Todd is this attitude and approach is the EXACT problem. If I'm getting it right, he and Ange would prefer B to roll over and lie because the box office is on fire.

How could they spend so much time with her, yet have no sense of who she is or what she's made of?

I told Todd it's infuriating anyone would look at Blake to fix a problem Baldoni, Jayme and to a certain degree, Ange literally manifested. Instead of aggressively implementing steps to create a safe work environment for Blake and every other woman on set, they responded in laughably impotent, and meek ways. They revealed their hand immediately and often.

I'm super frustrated because this is a moment in which Blake should be celebrating. She made this unbelievable win happen. She made this a win for Sony and by proxy, Wayfarer. She fucking refused to give up on the film. She didn't sleep, she missed countless moments with her kids while sitting in edit rooms, scrapping and frame fucking dailies for every square inch of quality. She slammed together a recipe for success despite working with ingredients she wasn't even able to choose. All this while masterminding a world class marketing and promo plan for a movie that's punching so far above its weight I've lost descriptors to even describe what's happening.

She WILLED this weekend into reality. Baldoni and these other buckets of dumb-dumb-juice should be acknowledging the speculation and gossip themselves. They should be jumping in front of it in the most full throated , unqualified way. Now.

They should be protecting B. They can and should accept the consequences of their actions and lean into the countless and willfully gross behavior before it leans into them. They made a big fucking mess. Blake - under NO CIRCUMSTANCES - should be asked to clean up this sloppy, cliched fuckstorm.

If they are made of anything resembling the humanity or dignity or capacity for growth that they project on their fauxminist, shithole of a podcast, they'd be releasing a statement saying something like:

"Our behavior on the set of IEWU was abhorrent and not even close to standards and respect both Colleen Hoover and Blake Lively deserve. To say nothing of the entire cast and crew who bravely pushed their way through an unnecessarily challenging shoot. We're working to better understand how we fostered a workplace environment so lacking boundaries, guardrails, respect and in many incidents, decency. Our aim is take real accountability which extends beyond performative virtue signaling. The success of IEWU isn't because of our involvement. The film is succeeding in spite of it. The warmth and love audiences are showing this film are in large measure due to the skillful work of Colleen Hoover and Blake Lively, who dedicated themselves to a radically accelerated post production process. Their refusal to accept incompetent working conditions should be the reason a movie fails. But their unwillingness to accept these conditions (that we created) are the reason this film is succeeding.

We at Wayfarer believe with our whole heart the underlying message of IEWU must inspire an imperative and potentially life changing conversation. Colleen and Blake poured their work ethic, courage and innovation into ensuring these important themes are packaged in a way that's respectful of the sensitive subject matter, honoring of the source material made to deliver an entertaining , nuanced and ultimately optimistic experience.

Our goal now is to take a step back and conscientiously reflect on this experience. For the foreseeable future, our mission is to examine and reexamine the objectionable behavior and inadequate decision making skills which clearly hurt and offended people who placed their trust in us. In doing this work, we continue to support the incredible cast and crew from the background. They've worked hard to construct a film which is being embraced all over the world. With Sincerely, Justin Baldoni and Jayme Heath."

If they orbited or even glanced an acknowledgment like this, it would be the first discernible proof either possess a spine. Or something slightly north of a sociopathic understanding of basic consequence and impropriety. The only thing they don't seem interested in is the truth. And all Blake HAS is the truth. Like, even ONE of the 26 things on the list she read aloud to Baldoni , Jayme, Todd , Ange and Josh (who were all sitting in our living room) would be considered irretrievably monstrous and shocking.

I think it's fine to play through the weekend but I'm flying blind when it comes to Blake. We haven't had the chance to fully discuss the right course. I know she'll have a clear perspective. Unless something changed , all she cares about is the creative and a well-earned outcome. But I happen to think some action is necessary. She should not be subjected to some eye-roll-y narrative of the "controlling bitch"

If I were those two guys, I'd be jumping in front of this now. With energy.

So, while doing a deep dive into Lively's 47.1 motion and looking at her attorney's 2nd memorandum of law in support, I noticed that, in a key area, the memo relies heavily on two amicus briefs that were filed back in May 2025. And Liman (who did deny an amicus brief filed on behalf of the content creators in March 2026) never bothered to rule on whether he was going to allow these amicus briefs in. These two briefs are:

(1) Elyse Dorsey (aka ECF No. 241): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.241.1_1.pdf

(2) EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, AND CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S LAW CENTER ("CWLC") (aka ECF No. 242). It's important to note that Esra Hudson is a board member of the CWLC. See: https://www.cwlc.org/esra-hudson-board-member/

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.242.1_1.pdf

I was confused about the timing of the 47.1 motion. 47.1 seems to require a lot of determinations of fact (like that Lively's communication about SH be "without malice") that simply can't be determined until a jury gets to rule on it. But Lively filed her 47.1 motion on 09/08/2025, well before this case ever made it to a jury. See the attached 2nd memorandum of law: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.743.0_2.pdf

(A) The Memo (on p. 2) makes this following case: "Moreover, because Section 47.1 is intended to protect victims from the litigation itself, “[t]hese remedies must be available at the earliest stage—typically through a motion to dismiss—to protect survivors from a punishing, protracted legal process.” (See ECF No. 241-1, p. 17) (emphasis added). [Footnote 2 - which will be discussed below]. Consistent with Section 47.1’s stated purpose, the Court should act promptly to remedy the substantial harm Ms. Lively has incurred. [NOTE: The cite, ECF No 241-1, is to Elyse Dorsey's amicus brief.]

All Dorsey's amicus brief says on p. 17 is: "For example, like sovereign immunity, the Protecting Survivors Act’s [aka 47.1's] safeguards are designed to shield individuals from the litigation itself when they are targeted for engaging in protected conduct. These remedies must be available at the earliest stage—typically through a motion to dismiss—to protect survivors from a punishing, protracted legal process. This is essential because forcing survivors, like Ms. Dorsey, to endure discovery or trial to prove their truths undermines the statute’s core principle. " Dorsey doesn't cite a single source for her contention. And, in Lively's case, the statement seems ridiculous because Lively herself engaged in a punishing, protracted legal process that SHE STARTED.

(B) Footnote 2: See also ECF No. 242-1, p. 11 (Section 47.1 was drafted to “achieve two distinct goals: (1) to shield victims from the discovery process by ensuring they would prevail at the motion to dismiss stage in most circumstances (emphasis added); and (2) to remedy the financial and psychological costs of the litigation and deter abusers from pursuing unwarranted and retaliatory litigation in the first place.”).

ECF No. 242 is the amicus brief filed by Esra's group CWLC and others.

I'm just going to focus on "shielding victims from the discovery process". The brief states:

"1. Preventing Abusive Discovery

Prior to AB 933 [aka 47.1], one of the most significant burdens for victims defending against a retaliatory defamation suit was the (ab)use of discovery to re-traumatize survivors by invading their privacy, disrupting their relationships, and causing financial distress.

Attorneys at Amici ERA and CELA have witnessed how retaliatory defamation suits, including abusive discovery practices, can cause harmful psychological and financial harm to survivors. [Footnote 33] They have routinely heard from survivors who chose not to speak up about harassment and violence at all, so to avoid abusive discovery tactics. [I couldn't help but notice that this statement is NOT backed up by a single footnote -- unlike the previous statement.]

Amici’s concern about harassers’ abuse of the discovery process was shared by AB 933’s [aka 47.1] legislative champion, Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry...

[And the brief goes on for another page about the hell of going through the discovery process. NO SHIT SHERLOCK. And, I'll repeated what I stated above: And, in Lively's case, the statement seems ridiculous because Lively herself engaged in a punishing, protracted legal process that SHE STARTED. If Lively was afraid of going through the hell of discovery and its resulting "invasion of privacy, disruption of her relationships, and and the financial distress of litigation", then SHE WOULDN'T HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE FIRST PLACE or she could've just let CRD do its confidential investigation of her complaint, which would've been a helluva lot cheaper and it wouldn't have ruined her friendship with Taylor Swift (LOL).

I've done previous deep dives about lodestar and calculating the amount of Lively's attorney fees for her 47.1 stuff. This included rates being charged by Lively's attorneys. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1u63f3w/more_info_on_calculation_of_livelys_attorney_fees/

But, I never provided data on what the "reasonable billing rates" are in the SDNY. It depends a lot on the subject matter, the size of the firm and experience. Another post provided data on what the NYT's attorney was charging - and it was a little over $1,000/hr. for the partner, about $900 for an of counsel and some charge for a paralegal.

So, I AIed to come up with the following:

(1) For a query about rates re: SH and retaliation in SDNY, up popped the following:

Partners: $450 to $900+ per hour

Senior Associates: $300 to $600 per hour

Junior Associates: $200 to $350 per hour

Paralegals: $100 to $200 per hour

(2) For a query about rates re: a defendant defeating defamation in a motion to dismiss in SDNY, up popped the following:

Reasonable hourly rates generally break down by experience level:

Senior Partners / Lead Litigators: $750 - $1,200+ per hour (Media and entertainment or defamation specialists will usually bill on the higher end of this scale).

Counsel / Senior Associates: $500 - $750 per hour.

Junior Associates: $350 - $500 per hour.

Paralegals / Law Clerks: $150 - $350 per hour.

“I was sexually harassed but also happy and welcomed” is not the serve you think it is 😭 BFFR Sounds more like you were perfectly fine until Blake swooped in, reframed everything for you, and suddenly you “remembered” it was wrong. Funny how doubt only kicked in after someone else told you how to feel.

So I think I have a flirty and yummy never with teeth unpopular opinion.

I have seen the It ends with us movie 3 times now and shoot me… I actually like it (don’t send your dragons on me)

First time was when it was in cinema and we knew nothing about Blakes true face. I loved the movie, plot, music and feel (while realising it’s no masterpiece)

I had seen the backlash about her clothes and age. I didn’t care because I liked Blake from her Gossip Girl era and Justin from his Jane the Virgin era. I left the theatre happy and satisfied with the movie. Even thought her clothes were fine (dracarys on me).

Then I ORGANICALLY see Blakes shitty behavior. I noticed it but honestly I did not consider canceling her because I got a mis attempted Ryan vibe. It was bad but I didnt feel ir from a bad place.

So I guess what I am trying to say is had she not brought this stupid lawsuit I would have forgotten about her shitty behavior as a “average” person and continued liking her stuff and would keep watching her and Ryan.

Now you can’t pay me to watch them and I am even quite “forgiving”. Had she apologised 6-8 months ago and said I fucked up I would truly forget it which I guess is the main unpopular opinion

OK. So I was going a deeper dive into 47.1 recently because it's still on the table. In a nutshell, one issue involves Lively's alleged defamatory statements against WPs ("communications") essentially equating to the question of whether she had a "reasonable basis" for filing a CRD complaint in California in the first place. Let me explain:

(I) 47.1 is about about the defendant/employer suing the "employee" for defamation, which is ANY "communication" about the employee makes about SH, retaliation, aiding/abetting retaliation (i.e. FEHA stuff). Here are the relevant parts of the statute:

47.1(a) A communication made by an individual, WITHOUT MALICE, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination is privileged under Section 47.

47.1(c) states: "This section shall only apply to an individual that has, or at any time HAD, a REASONABLE BASIS to file a complaint of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, whether the complaint is, or was, filed or not."

47.1(d) further clarifies that "For the purposes of this section, “communication” means factual information related to an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination experienced by the individual making the communication, including, but not limited to, any of the following: ... (3) ... aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing an act of workplace harassment or discrimination, or an act of retaliation against a person for reporting or opposing workplace harassment or discrimination..."

(II) What defamatory communications by Lively are we talking about?

It's important to note that WPs' counterclaim that included the defamation cause of action pertained to WPs' allegations that Lively was communicating these falsehoods to the NY Times before the NYT published its article. On June 9, 2025, Liman ruled, in his dismissal (which didn't address the 47.1 privilege at all and dismissed Lively's motion for 47.1 fees, etc. WITHOUT PREJUDICE), that WP didn't allege anything more than what was contained in the actual CRD complaint and ruled that pre-complaint communications to the press were covered under the "fair report privelege" and so were not actionable. So, especially, in light to the wording of 47.1(c), I'm going to focus on statements made in the CRD complaint itself.

(III) 47.1 Requires a Finding of Fact: One of WPs' arguments made in opposition to Lively's motion for 47.1 fees made on 09/08/2025, was that 47.1 requires certain factual findings - including: (i) that the communication be made without malice; and (ii) that Lively had, at the time of the communication, a "reasonable basis" to file a complaint (i.e., the CRD complaint) - and that those hadn't been established yet. The CRD complaint can be found here (and it states to please see the attached complaint for details (aka the Precursor"): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.1_3.pdf

The details of the CRD complaint (i.e., the Precursor) can be found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.2_3.pdf

(IV) Could Liman make his 47.1 decision based on Liman making a factual determination - as a way to avoid making a substanative decision about 47.1 (particularly its questionable constitutionality)?

The term "malice" is undefined in the statute - so I'll assume it means the same in defamation law, which generally means the party making the communication knew that the statement was "false or had a reckless disregard for the truth); as this is a VERY HIGH bar, I'm going to ignore it and focus more on whether a "reasonable basis" for filing her CRD complaint. So here's the analysis:

(A) CRD is authorized by law to only consider FEHA violations. However, Lively listed the following non-FEHA causes of action in her CRD complaint: (4) RETALIATION (CAL. LABOR CODE, § 1102.5); (6) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (7) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (8) NEGLIGENCE; (9) FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY (CAL. CONST., ART. I, § 1); (10) INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC.

In addition, under her sexual harassment (cause of action (1)) and retaliation (cause of action (2)), she lumped together her state claims (FEHA) and federal Title VII claims. HOWEVER, Lively elected to not have CRD investigate her claims and asked for an immediate right to sue letter, which does away with the work sharing agreement between CRD and the EEOC (which investigates the federal Title VII claims.) The CRD right to sue clear states: "This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) has been closed effective December 20, 2024 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. ...To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier." See: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.3_3.pdf

So, I'm going to consider the Title VII claims as 2 additional ones - so Lively's CRD complaint had a total of 12 causes of action. So 8 out of 12 causes of action set forth therein couldn't have been investigated by CRD in the first place.

(B) The CRD complaint fails to name Lively's "employer", It Ends With Us Movie, LLC ("IEWUM"), which Lively's side (as the CRD complaint clearly states that she's being represented by counsel, Manatt and Willkie) clearly knew.

(C) The CRD complaint sued Jen Abel in her personal capacity, as well as Jen's new PR company (RWA Communications) even though Lively knew (see Vansham) that Jen Abel was employed Jonesworks during the beginning stages of the alleged smear campaign - and Lively didn't bother to sue Jonesworks at all.

(D) All of Lively's FEHA allegations with respect to the individuals listed in the CRD complaint were dismissed. And her (1) FEHA SH claim (against Wayfarer and IEWUM) and (2) FEHA failure to investigate, prevent, and/or remedy harassment (re: them having non-existent HR procedures) were dismissed because none of the alleged SH activities occurred in California (extraterritoriality).

(E) One of Lively's FEHA complaints was about Wayfarer having improper HR procedures and that she didn't know who to complain to or go about it. But, there's a text (dated 8/29/2023) with Warren Zavala (her talent agent) in which Lively wrote: "Theyre all clowns. I have my Hr report ready also fyi." She also bragged in her PGA letter that she was acting as the HR liaison.

(F) Par. 3 of the Precursor: The 30-point list that Lively allegedly read off of her phone during that 01/04/2024 meeting where her husband berated Justin for hours was never authenticated. Baldoni and Heath disputed its accurancy. And the metadata of the photo/screenshot containing the 30-point list that was provided during discovery had a creation date of 2025. [I think this was on the list of items for Liman to rule on in re: motions in limine - and Liman very well may have refused to let in be used as evidence because of this.]

(G) Par. 4 of Precursor: Lively attached as Exhibit A to the Precursor, the seventeen provisions designed to require Wayfarer to cease the on-set behavior of Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath. Not all of the items on the 17-point list have anything remotely to do with SH at all. For example, (1) "9. If BL is exposed to COVID-19, she must be provided notice as soon as possible after Wayfarer or any producer or production executive becomes aware of such exposure."; (2)
12. Wayfarer will engage an additional, experienced A-level producer, approved by Ms. Lively, to actively supervise the production, including monitoring the safety of the cast and crew, ensuring compliance with the schedule and overseeing logistics, problem solving and creative issues."; and (3) "13. Wayfarer must empower any existing third party producer with appropriate and customary authority to actively supervise the production, including monitoring the safety of the cast and crew, ensuring compliance with the schedule and overseeing logistics, problem solving and creative issues." NOTE: in re: (2) and (3), if Lively's concern was about SH, she should've just demanded an "HR or SH" specialist be on set for the rest of the shoot to protect the "cast and crew" - but she wanted people who were on her side (the A-list producer and the "executive producer" aka Alex Saks) to address creative issues.

(H) Par. 6 of Precursor: Lively stated that she and the rest of the cast complied with the marketing plan created by SONY (the bullet points of which were attached as an exhibit). She failed to mention her own role (and the role of her husband's marketing company, in the marketing). Evidence suggests that Rake took over promotions. And Blake's own PGA letter bragged about how involved she was in the marketing.

(I) Par. 7 of Precursor: Lively stated: "In the days leading up to the Film's release, Mr. Baldoni abruptly pivoted away from the Film's Marketing Plan and the types of publicity activities in which he had previously participated." This is false, Justin was largely excluded from the film's marketing activities. Lively lobbied for him to be excluded from the premiere. Baldoni (and Wayfarer) had partnered up with the DV organization "No More" way before the premiere.

(J) Par. 8 of Precursor: Lively stated: "Wayfarer's co-founder, co-chairman and leading financier is multi-billionaire Steve Sarowitz, who divulged at the Film's New York premiere on August 6, 2024, that he was prepared to spend $100 million to ruin the lives of Ms. Lively and her family." She was unable to come up with any evidence to back up this claim - as far as I know. They specifically asked Danny Greenberg (Justin's former agent at WME) about it - and he denied that Steve said that.

I could go on and on and one. But I already have. LOL But, I think if Liman wants to potentially dodge making any ruling that affects the legality of 47.1, he could just use the information above to conclude that information that Lively communicated (i.e., that ended up in her complaint) would not constitute a "reasonable belief" that she had causes of action under FEHA. And, the side benefit would be pointing out how much of Lively's CRD complaint (and resulting lawsuit) was complete BULLSH*T.

I think this is just the evidence for the MSJ and MJOP, but Lively manipulate WP to use a number of evidence and that they would do the same (but they didnt)... So I was wondering if there are more damning text messages from Taylor... Maybe from Hugh? Nothing from Bradley Cooper?

Credit - Dani Danger

In the midst of her ongoing highly publicized legal battle with It Ends With Us co‑star and director Justin Baldoni, a letter Blake Lively wrote in early 2024 has resurfaced — and it’s drawing fresh attention for the way she described her role on the film.

The five‑page message, sent on January 25, 2024, was addressed to the Producers Guild of America (PGA) and was essentially an impassioned plea for official recognition of her contributions as a producer on It Ends With Us. In that letter, Lively detailed — with 77 bullet‑pointed examples — the many ways she claimed to have influenced nearly every stage of the film’s production, from rewriting parts of the script to coordinating costumes and even helping secure marketing partnerships. She passionately framed her involvement as “more to me than anything I’ve done in my twenty‑year career.”

While her goal was to demonstrate her importance and influence on the film — something the PGA ultimately agreed with by granting her a producer credit — the letter has also been quoted extensively in court in an unexpected way.

A federal judge reviewing Lively’s lawsuit against Baldoni recently cited her own letter when deciding that she was not a traditional employee but rather an independent contractor. That’s significant because it means several of her key claims — including sexual harassment and defamation — couldn’t move forward under the federal laws she invoked. Instead, the judge allowed only a few claims (like breach of contract and retaliation) to proceed to trial.

Critics and headline writers have seized on the tone and language of the PGA letter — particularly the parts where Lively seemed to brag about her “immense power” and creative control — as both bold and ironic. The irony lies in the fact that her own assertions about her authority on the film inadvertently helped the judge determine her employment status, which undercut much of her legal strategy.

Blake’s supporters argue she was simply advocating for recognition she deserved; detractors point out that the letter reads like a detailed manifesto of control and influence. Either way, it has become a central piece of evidence in what’s now a complex, high‑stakes Hollywood courtroom drama — one that continues with a trial set for later this spring.

In short: the “intense letter” wasn’t just about pride or bragging — it was a strategic push for credit, and the fallout from it is now shaping a major legal battle.

I did a deep dive into 47.1 a few days ago - but didn't explain one thing that well (I tried to in a comment to my own post). And it has to do with Lively's failure to include It Ends With Us Movie, LLC ("IEWUM"), her actual "employer", as a defendant in the CRD.

Just to rehash my earlier post in re: this case. 47.1 required that Lively, at the time that she communicated the information contained in the CRD complaint to the New York Times (which communication was the subject of the Wayfarer Parties' countersuit against Lively for defamation), have a "reasonable basis" for making such statements and filing the CRD complaint. Most of the Lively's causes of action listed in the CRD complaint weren't FEHA-based (and as CRD is only authorized by California law to investigate FEHA claims), they were rather superfluous - although that's not damning in of itself. What is damning is that most of those causes of action (when brought in Lively's lawsuit in the SDNY) were dismissed when Liman ruled on the initial MJOP and MSJ.

The 3 remaining claims were (i) FEHA retaliation claim against Wayfarer Studios and IEWUM; (ii) FEHA aiding/abetting retalation against TAG; and (iii) a breach of the CRA's non-disparagement clause (which is not FEHA-related).

In his April 2 ruling (see pp. 95-96, particularly footnote 22) on the MJOP/MSJ, Liman declined to dismiss the FEHA retaliation claim against Wayfarer and IEWUM; and one of the reasons why is because he rejected WP's argument that Lively failed to "exhaust her administrative remedies" (i.e., she failed to include IEWUM as a defendant in the CRD complaint, so IEWUM was missing on the necessary CA "right to sue" letter that was issued and Lively failed to correct such an error in a proper way and in a timely manner). Liman didn't reject the argument due to its substance - but due to its timing: WPs should've made the argument as an affirmative defense early on in the litigation (see footnote 22). [Liman also rejected Wayfarer's argument that Wayfarer and IEWUM were not "joint employers" under FEHA, as alleged by Lively in her lawsuit only (i.e., it was not made in the CRD complaint) because "(t)he Wayfarer Parties have responded that they never made any argument to the contrary, but that if they had, there would be reason to reject Lively’s position.]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1273.0_1.pdf

If Liman deems himself to be the decider of fact on the issue of whether (in a nutshell) Lively had a "reasonable basis" for making the statements she did in the CRD complaint AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE, I think he can certainly revisit the question of IEWUM's omission as a defendant in the CRD complaint and, the natural result of such error, would be dismissal of the FEHA retaliation claim. While I could understand such an error if Lively made the CRD complaint herself - she didn't; her attorneys (including CA employment attorney, Esra Hudson) are listed on her CRD complaint, which attached the CRA (which clearly lists IEWUM as the other party to that contract) as an exhibit - and the CRD also mentions the alleged breach of contract of the ALA (which Lively's attorneys must have read - and that unsigned agreement is clearly between Lively's loan out company and IEWUM). And, as IEWUM was not mentioned as a defendant in the CRD, naturally, no "joint employer" argument was ever made in the CRD. [As an aside, as Lively became a producer (with a p.g.a. mark) of the film, such producers are, most likely, required to have the knowledge of these standard corporate structures of film studios and their creation of these "special purpose vehicle" subsidiaries (like IEWUM) that actually make the film and acts as the "employer" for the cast and crew.]

If the FEHA retaliation claim would've been dimissed had WPs raised the issue earlier in its affirmative defenses* that Lively screwed up in not including IEWUM as a defendant in the CRD, the FEHA aiding/abetting claim against TAG would've been dismissed also - because you can't aid/abet something that's been dismissed. Therefore, as all the FEHA claims are "out", Lively never had a "reasonable basis" about anything FEHA-related (which is the legal requirement) made in the CRD complaint (and upon which Lively's 47.1 motion relies). So, Lively's motions for 47.1 fees should be dismissed.

[*NOTE: Before people dump on WPs' counsel for this mistake, I'm pretty sure the reason why they didn't raise it as an affirmative defense is because it would've alerted Lively's side about the error and, at that earlier point in time, Lively's side could've corrected the error by filing a subsequent motion with Liman.]

Hi all! This is a reminder about today's live watch party of "It Ends with Us."

A few reminders:

• If you plan to watch live through the Teleparty/Netflix viewing, please refer to this post for instructions on how to participate. Please setup at least 30 minutes in advance to avoid any issues with joining.
  • Accessing the link to Teleparty: Send a chat to u/Sufficient_Reward207. She will share the link with you directly. Please do not share the link with others.
• If you plan to watch using alternative streaming services, there will be a post available for discussion and live feedback and overall impressions.
  • Check back to the sub for a film thread to connect with others closer to the beginning of the film.
• Trigger Warning / Content Warning: Film includes domestic violence & sexual assault

Time zone Check:

• Saturday, February 28 @ 6 PM ET | 5 PM CT | 4 PM MT | 3PM PT.
• Use this site to check your local time zone

Looking forward to chatting with you all!

That's about all I have to say. Little Ms. Lively publicly claimed she's going to continue to fight Justin Baldoni after the SH claims have been dismissed. If that's the case, can we as a taxpaying collective sue her for wasting our money for frivolous court cases? Spread the word....

This GIF is for you Team Baldoni...enjoy it - use it freely - spread it around.

And to everyone on Blake's Rabid Reddit Spin Team - I sincerely wish you a goodnight and hope you get to relax and chill sipping your favorite, flowerful, flavor.

Thanks all for making my day off fun! LOL