00:00:00.000She could have done no worse, no worse than what she did by settling this case.
00:00:06.560You want to encourage people to settle and not use their statements in settlement against them.
00:00:15.600Thank you, John, for being here again.
00:00:17.660This is John Genga, my attorney who helped me out of the subpoena that Blake Lively sent me and over 100 other content creators.
00:00:26.900And, John, you have some opinions about what just happened right now.
00:00:31.260We thought it was a settlement, and then—
00:00:34.300So there is a settlement, and I guess the terms of the settlement are confidential,
00:00:40.220but otherwise people can say whatever they want.
00:00:42.620And, boy, Lively's side is saying some pretty outrageous things, I've got to tell you.
00:00:47.080And, in fact, some of the things that they're saying are, you know,
00:00:52.460If I'm if I'm Brian Friedman, I would be much more outraged than he indicated on in the interview that he was on last night.
00:00:59.460But they're basically saying that, oh, that that they still have a way to recover jillions of dollars from him.
00:01:08.260And he's going to he's admitted that he's harassed her by the language of the settlement agreement, which, by the way, is, you know, they're asserting a claim to recover damages under some privilege.
00:01:19.440they're accusing what they're what they're claiming right now is also privilege they can't
00:01:24.580use the settlement statement or the settlement discussions under federal rule of evidence 408
00:01:29.260against against uh baldoni or his or his company or his his other descendants they can't use that
00:01:35.860they didn't admit anything the for this evidence code 408 was enacted so that people could you want
00:01:43.300to encourage people to settle and not use their statements in settlement against them so there's
00:01:47.840an absolute privilege against that. And the fact that they have done that, I mean, to
00:01:51.600me, it's just beyond the pale. It seems like a total sucker punch on the part of Lively's
00:02:00.220attorneys. I'm sure they spent days going over this settlement language, particularly
00:02:05.780that one line about, oh, everyone has a right to be heard or whatever. I mean, it probably
00:02:11.960started out much more egregious than that. And it took three, eight, the whole weekend
00:02:16.400to negotiate that down. I'm sure. And, and then to say, and then to use that, you know, against
00:02:23.220them, you know, publicly, I mean, for a lawyer to do that, that's just, I mean, that, that's what
00:02:31.280gives lawyers bad, you know, bad reputations. It makes you think you can't believe anything a
00:02:36.540lawyer says. And I got to tell you, the, the, that is not, that's embarrassing to me. It is
00:02:42.920offensive to me and it gives us a bad name and and it's not it's not okay that they did that
00:02:49.840i'm just outraged that they did that um and and you know they're gonna have they're gonna have
00:02:55.980a day in court they do have a motion out there um which i can go over with you i'm very happy
00:03:01.120to discuss yes i would love to understand that because i think everyone now is like okay this
00:03:05.940is over and now the judge is going to say fine and then file something and it's over with but now
00:03:11.480it's not over and they're going to go to court somehow still can yeah please explain it's not
00:03:16.920completely over so there's there's a tiny bit of the case that was carved out and it was it was
00:03:23.000this um there's a motion uh that uh blake uh brought under california civil code section 47.1
00:03:31.840which is a newly enacted statute it became effective january 1 2024 so and an anti-slap
00:03:37.620is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
00:03:41.820It's basically you can't sue someone for exercising their right
00:03:49.060to speak at a city council meeting or exercising their right to file a lawsuit
00:03:54.420or exercising the right to speak on a public issue.
00:04:11.840A lot of people are referring to it like a Me Too law,
00:04:14.940like you have no right to countersue someone if they sue you for that.
00:04:20.520It says, and there's several elements that have to be shown for them to prevail.
00:04:27.080So it says that a communication made by an individual without malice
00:04:33.360regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination is privileged.
00:04:38.520So they can't be sued over that, okay?
00:04:42.060But there's an important limitation later in the statute to that provision.
00:04:51.820It says this section shall only apply to an individual that has,
00:04:56.500or at any time had, a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.
00:05:03.360So, now you're going to pit the claims, this motion, basically against the summary judgment motion that Baldoni won, right?
00:05:15.620So, and that motion, the ruling on that motion said, there was no basis to bring these claims.
00:05:23.580There is no evidence at all to support the claims that are being brought.
00:05:28.020The way I read this provision of the statute, a reasonable basis to file a complaint means a legal basis to file the complaint. So if you're going to say, well, she had a reasonable basis because she believed that some of this conduct was not appropriate, but she filed a complaint that had no support in the law.
00:05:47.260She filed a complaint on the basis that she was an employee, for example. She filed a complaint, you know, for conduct that took place outside the relationship, all kinds of things. So I would argue if I'm, you know, Baldoni's lawyers, that the summary judgment motion has already determined that she had no reasonable basis to file these complaints and that therefore she should not be able to recover under this statute.
00:06:15.060Do you think that's how the judge will also rule on this?
00:06:20.780I mean, I think judges, especially in a case like this, they look at this as, you know, a bunch of rich people fighting over money.
00:06:32.280And they say, you know, you know, you guys all took your shot and it pops on all your houses and I'm going to, you know, you could just say I'm going to deny this motion.
00:06:41.180Now, if he finds that that the motion was is proper and he grants the motion, I think he does have to award attorney's fees.
00:06:51.180It says a prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making a communication that is privileged under this section shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs for successfully defending themselves.
00:07:06.780So if he finds that Section 47.1 was violated,
00:07:11.500she will get to recover her attorney's fees for filing the motion to dismiss.
00:07:18.480But then she's also asking for punitive damages.
00:08:02.320I would be surprised, A, if he granted this motion, but B, if he awarded anything more than 100,000 bucks or something like that, which is, you know, Blake can find that in a cushion to the couch.
00:08:13.920Interesting. But could she claim, you know, that part of this, that part of this was a smear campaign, that she could claim damages for her reputation because she was countersued?0.96
00:08:26.500Could she try or will she try to do that, you think, now that you're starting to know these lawyers?
00:08:30.540Yeah, I don't think so. I think that that that that is all out because of the settlement. I think anything beyond the four walls of this motion is not fair game to be able to recover.
00:08:46.520She can't she can't recover everything she spent on this case. That's just not going to happen. That'll never happen in a million years. First of all, the judge would find that outrageous, number one. But secondly, there's no basis, I believe, under the settlement to do that because they've they've released all those claims. So she doesn't have any additional right to bring any claim for all of what she did to fight this so-called smear campaign.
00:09:13.060So do you think now that, will there be more evidence that anyone has to file?
00:09:18.720Will we see more filings around this in general?
00:09:22.960So the Lively Party has just submitted a letter asking for leave to file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages.
00:09:37.740Or the court could say, I've seen enough. I don't need to see any more.
00:09:40.960um and um but the court i doubt will take any more evidence there there won't be any uh testimony at
00:09:49.120the hearing i don't think it's just going to be a legal argument so but there will be a hearing
00:09:54.820about this there will be a hearing if the court decides to hold a hearing the court could decide
00:09:59.580the court could say i have enough information that i can decide on the papers and i won't hold
00:10:03.960a hearing um the courts do that from time to time i out here they do that a lot in the central
00:10:09.040District of California. I don't know how much they do that in this other district in New York.
00:10:12.420When I saw they come out and say, like, this is a victory for Blake Lively, I was like.
00:10:16.360Yeah, this is a victory for Blake Lively, really? I mean, so spending $40 million on lawyers and
00:10:23.580recovering nothing is a victory. By the way, I think, I don't know, I think Friedman somewhere
00:10:29.080said something about she recovered nothing in the settlement. Which, which I think, excuse me.
00:10:36.160Yeah. So how did that, because that information has been out there. But how did that leak? Because I'm sure that that was not supposed to be public information.
00:10:45.900Yeah, I don't know. But it seems to be.
00:10:49.700Yeah, and there's no NDIS signed here from any party. So both parties can come out and talk about this as much as they want. Is that normal?
00:10:57.060But they can't but they can't talk about the settlement. So I don't know, maybe Friedman, you know, maybe maybe he was talking about in the context when someone was asking about reports that that that she recovered nothing.
00:11:10.120So but because otherwise, if he if he said that she recovered nothing in the settlement, that would be I mean, that could violate the confidentiality of the settlement.
00:11:20.880Is it normal that they don't sign NDAs? I thought that usually during settlement agreements that both parties would just like shut up from now on and don't talk about this anymore. So we wouldn't get to know anything. But it seems like it's the Wild West now. Everyone is out there talking on behalf of their clients and it's kind of out of control.
00:11:40.660Yeah, often in a settlement agreement, you have not only a provision for confidentiality of the terms of the settlement, but a provision that says, and by the way, you won't say anything more about this case other than that it was amicably resolved, right? Amicably resolved.
00:11:57.340Here, they didn't do that. They said, we won't talk about the terms of the settlement, but everyone's free to talk about whatever the heck they want to talk about. So I'm sure that they'll be doing that.
00:12:08.560Now, according to Sigrid Nicali, Blake is going to be out there, you know, working with state legislatures and changing the laws and things like that.
00:13:54.200And that message is completely gone from from this. And because of of of essentially the the the you know, the way she is kind of almost belittled this notion by by making the ridiculous claim she has where there's where there's real victims out there.0.93
00:14:17.700And and she's not one of those. It's sad that that message has gotten lost here because that was the whole point of the show.
00:14:23.480Do you think that this could actually, you know, harm her legal team in any way, you know, that they actually did something like that?
00:14:31.840Because I'm assuming that lawyers like you and lawyers talk together and, you know, this is like something that will be looked upon, you know, by the industry or by, you know, by other lawyers as well.
00:15:09.260They made this deal, and then they're going to use what they say in the deal against them, which, first of all, the rules of evidence prohibit that, number one.0.74
00:15:19.260So, Nenti, but they don't prohibit you from saying something in the public, but, I mean, ethically they should.
00:15:25.840I mean, or at least the lawyer should feel bound by that.
00:15:30.240And, you know, the lawyer's reputation is kind of on the line at that point.
00:15:34.260And if people are out there saying, oh, you've got a lawyer that's willing to say anything, you know, I mean, I don't know if, I mean, I wouldn't want to, I would not want to portray myself that way in the public.
00:15:46.280because I wouldn't want people saying, you know,
00:15:48.500I don't know if I could trust this guy, you know,
00:15:50.740so I don't know if I'm ever going to hire this guy.
00:16:14.280So, you know, a lawyer, you know, clients ask lawyers to do things all the time that lawyers don't think are in their client's best interest.
00:16:23.440And they'll say, yeah, you can ask me to do this, but I'm not going to do it because I don't think it helps you.
00:16:27.420I think it and I'll tell you why I don't think it helps you.
00:16:29.620And so, you know, sometimes the client will overrule the lawyer and sometimes the lawyer will overrule the client.
00:16:36.880And in this situation where there's absolutely nothing to be gained by the lawyer for going out there and saying these things and everything to lose, I would just say no.
00:16:48.500I would not have made those statements.
00:16:50.760So what do you think, like last year, what do you think, what are the different scenarios that can come out of this now?
00:16:56.060As you said to me in an email yesterday where you were like so outraged by this, you said that maybe they could rescind the settlement.
00:17:05.720So that was before I knew about this carve out from the settlement.
00:17:10.720So, yeah, I don't know that they could do that.
00:17:14.980If there wasn't this carve out, I would I would say, you know, I would say there's more likelihood of that happening.
00:17:22.280But and rescinding a settlement is very hard to do, by the way.
00:17:25.800So the courts really don't like to do that. And I mean, unless unless there was I mean, I mean, here, there was certainly a situation where there there's arguably an agreement reached and then and then arguably breached by what was said publicly.
00:17:44.780But there is a right that they have under the settlement carve-out to bring these claims.
00:17:52.480And so I don't think there's a possibility of rescinding the settlement.0.92
00:18:05.060But why do you think, because I've heard a lot of people just last day,
00:18:07.600why do you think that Baldoni's team allowed this claim to still be here?
00:18:14.480the attorney's fees, why would they allow that to still be under discussion here at all?
00:18:21.340That's a very good question. I don't think that they were willing. I don't think that
00:18:26.840the lively side was willing to give that up. And I think that the Baldoni side felt that it was
00:18:35.560enough of a non-issue that it didn't bother them because they didn't think there would be any
00:18:43.780material exposure by this claim so um they said you know go at it and in fact i think
00:18:52.900i think it's somewhat consistent with you know baldoni's general view that he was trying to
00:18:58.560portray in this movie about people who are victims should be able to speak out of them and then we're
00:19:04.500going to be testing this statute we're going to be testing 47.1 to see what the uh you know what
00:19:09.840the parameters of this statute are at least in the first instance so so i think that he didn't
00:19:15.700think that there was a a realistic um possibility that it would that it would have any material
00:19:22.240impact on him so that's why and if that was a condition to settling and and to basically being
00:19:27.580able to walk away without having to pay anything being sued for 300 million dollars and and walking
00:19:33.100away with paying zero and that's a complete victory and by the way that's that's that's
00:19:38.380that's as well as he could have done what the the what happened with the settlement was as well as
00:19:47.620he could have done had he gone to trial and won everything so so to for for what's her name to
00:19:54.220lively to say that this is a complete victory it's a complete loss it's an absolute complete loss
00:20:01.360She could have done no worse, no worse than what she did by settling this case.0.98
00:20:08.720She could have gone to trial and completely gotten creeped and done no worse than the terms on which she apparently settled this case.
00:20:18.400So that's another reason, by the way, they probably, the Baldoni team agreed to keep this motion alive because they would have had that anyway.
00:21:55.520Well, do you have anything else you want to add?
00:21:57.880What would you tell Blake Lively's Adorn is right now?
00:22:01.520I would tell Ezra Hudson that I'm really disappointed in her.
00:22:05.220I have to say she was very involved in this case.
00:22:09.240She, I'm sure, has strong opinions or was, you know,
00:22:14.680obviously wants to advocate for her client.
00:22:16.480But I just think she went too far by getting an agreement that she did and getting the language that she did and then saying, aha, see, you admitted that you, you know, harassed my client.