Oh no, her case just COLLAPSED !？!
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
169.22696
Summary
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have been in a bitter legal battle for years, and now it s time to see if there was a smear campaign against her. Is there any truth behind all of the allegations against him? And is it enough to get him to admit he crossed the line on a steamy movie set?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Bring your friends, wear your florals. Oh my god, this looks so bad.
00:00:09.040
Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk. I'm Sashdi Floor, journalist, Hollywood truth teller,
00:00:13.380
and your voice of reason in a town built on delusion. Okay, I hope everyone is having a
00:00:18.860
lovely day so far. I just finished reading a New York Times article about the legal feud between
00:00:25.020
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. It's called Lively vs Baldoni tests what crosses the line
00:00:31.900
on a steamy movie set. They're going through all the claims Blake has against Justin and his defense,
00:00:38.420
but there is no mention of a smear campaign. Hmm, let's also take another look at Blake Lively's
00:00:46.780
own deposition and how she's claiming that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair parties harmed her entire
00:00:52.920
family. And also it's revealed that she doesn't know what it means to be offered employment.
00:00:59.380
And this is really interesting because we now also have a deposition from Josh Greenstein,
00:01:05.180
the president of Sony. And guess what? Now we know who came up with that tone-deaf marketing
00:01:11.480
campaign. And this is so funny to me because the more this guy is bragging about Blake, because he
00:01:16.780
is, he's one of those people who wrote a glowing letter for her to get the producer credit. But the
00:01:22.280
more he brags about her, the worse it looks for Blake. And we have another expert from Blake Lively's
00:01:29.340
team. They just keep coming. I think this is number six. And after reading his deposition and
00:01:35.460
his report, it's clear that Blake Lively really should have sued Sony. This is quite entertaining.
00:01:43.260
Okay, so let's look at this New York Times article quickly. It was published this morning. I was reading
00:01:47.520
through it, expecting it to be, you know, leaning towards Blake. I found it to be quite balanced,
00:01:53.060
actually. They were referring to a lot of her claims. And then they did mention Justin Baldoni's
00:01:58.100
defense in the middle of this. But they don't really mention any of the evidence that we've seen
00:02:02.220
lately with these horrific text messages and emails that put both Blake and Ryan in a terrible light.
00:02:08.240
But the thing that really stands out for me here is that they don't even mention the word
00:02:13.860
smear campaign. Remember that original story that they did in 2024 in December, the big expose of
00:02:22.200
Hollywood's big smear machine? We can bury anyone? Well, they don't talk about that anymore. Now it's
00:02:30.440
basically only focusing on Blake Lively's SH claims. They do mention in the article that she sued him for
00:02:37.200
retaliation. But that's just one sentence where they mentioned she sued him for that as well as SH.
00:02:42.520
But anyways, they have a legal expert here who is agreeing basically with all other legal experts
00:02:47.640
that I've been listening to or I've been reading about. Everyone is kind of agreeing at this point
00:02:52.960
that her claims will not hold up in court for SH. Her claims are not serious enough for that. And he
00:03:02.200
is saying here, one way to think about this case is a clash between broader cultural perceptions
00:03:06.860
of harassment post-MeToo movement, said Russell Robinson, this legal expert. And he has expertise
00:03:14.400
in anti-discrimination law. And he says that where I think a lot of people, especially women,
00:03:20.820
would read the allegation and say that's inappropriate. But I think for courts, the standard
00:03:27.300
for harassment is much more demanding than the general public perception of what's appropriate
00:03:32.500
or inappropriate. And here's what's interesting, because they're also mentioning this other
00:03:38.600
lawsuit here. And this lawsuit also involves Judge Lyman, the same judge as we know from Blake
00:03:46.600
and Justin's case. So one of the real housewives, her name is Leah McSweeney. She sued Bravo TV
00:03:53.660
and Andy Cohen. I think that was in 2024, 2025. She sued for 33 civil counts. And one of those counts
00:04:02.640
was SH because she felt when Andy Cohen was asking her a question in one of those Real Housewives
00:04:09.500
reunion, he SHed her because he asked about her sexual experiences with other women. And she felt that
00:04:17.740
that was inappropriate. She also sued them for pushing her to drink alcohol when they knew she
00:04:22.560
had issues with alcoholism and all that stuff. But the interesting thing here is that Judge Lyman
00:04:27.800
threw out that claim. There are some other claims that survived, but he threw out that claim
00:04:34.500
specifically. And the New York Times is saying here, in dismissing the gender discrimination claims,
00:04:40.620
Judge Lyman noted that if the conduct she described had occurred on the factory floor or in an executive
00:04:47.960
suite, it would rise to a valid harassment claim. But this was reality television. The judge ruled
00:04:54.620
and the cast members were all aware of the agitating role that Mr. Cohen had long played as moderator of
00:05:02.000
the reunions. So he was basically saying you have to expect these kind of questions when you sign up
00:05:07.980
for a role in a reality show. And that's exactly how Justin Baldoni's attorneys were arguing his case in
00:05:15.260
court for the hearing in January saying, you know, Blake signed up for this. This was on a movie set.
00:05:20.800
They were discussing characters in a film. You have to expect these kind of conversations when you sign
00:05:26.700
up for a movie like that. So the fact that Judge Lyman already ruled on something a bit similar,
00:05:32.120
I think that is a sign that he is going to throw out Blake Lively's SH claims. And also, as you know,
00:05:39.260
I mentioned the other day, there is a similar lawsuit. There was a similar lawsuit about 20 years ago
00:05:44.400
from an assistant who was helping out in the writer's room of the TV show Friends. And she
00:05:50.260
filed a lawsuit saying that the language in that room was so vulgar and she felt harassed by it.
00:05:56.180
And she lost because they said that you have to have creative freedom in these writer's rooms.
00:06:02.200
So I find it very hard to believe that Blake's case is going to survive. And as you know,
00:06:08.060
there are two major factors that's really important in this case. And that is that she's claiming
00:06:13.080
that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair parties retaliated against her because she spoke up
00:06:18.380
about these SH claims. And if there aren't any SH claims, what's going to happen to that
00:06:23.760
retaliation? That doesn't make the retaliation illegal anymore. If there was any, I obviously
00:06:29.260
don't think there was any retaliation or any smear campaign. But if there was even, then it's not
00:06:35.580
illegal if they didn't retaliate against her for speaking up about something like this.
00:06:39.860
As I already mentioned, I wanted to get into Blake Lively's deposition a little bit more
00:06:43.900
because there's so much interesting stuff here. And we have to keep in mind that Blake Lively
00:06:48.460
need to stick with everything that she's claiming in her deposition when she's at trial,
00:06:54.020
when she's at that stand, when she is questioned by Justin Baldoni's attorneys. So she's questioned
00:06:58.800
here by Justin's attorneys how much this smear campaign has damaged her career and her personal
00:07:08.040
life. But before we get into that, I wanted to show you Blake's IMDb page, how much she's actually
00:07:14.060
worked the last 10 years. You can see that after It Ends With Us, she did do another simple favor.
00:07:21.940
She did shoot that after she finished shooting It Ends With Us and it did premiere after It Ends
00:07:27.180
With Us. Before that, she did the movie If, where she had a voice and same as in Ladypool,
00:07:33.320
in Deadpool. She was only voicing that. And prior to that, she didn't have a movie since 2020,
00:07:41.200
the rhythm section. There was a lot of controversies around that as well. And before she did that,
00:07:46.220
she hadn't worked for two years since she did A Simple Favor in 2018. So she's not a busy actress.
00:07:54.640
And that's also why it's going to be so impossible for her to claim that she lost work because of the
00:08:03.140
Wayfair parties or Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath. So she's asked here if she's worked since It Ends
00:08:09.340
With Us. And she says, yes, but she's worked on her companies. Have you worked about, have you done
00:08:13.440
something else? The attorney says here and she says, no, I don't believe so. And then they're asking,
00:08:18.720
were you in a movie with Anna Kendrick? And she says, are you talking about, I understood your
00:08:23.100
question to be since It Ends With Us came out. That's correct. Since you shot It Ends With Us.
00:08:29.480
Okay. She says, the attorney says, since the beginning of the smear campaign. And she says,
00:08:33.780
you're using your definition in a different ways. The way you have defined the smear campaign for
00:08:38.800
purposes of today is the digital manipulation that occurred in August of 2024. That's when the film
00:08:45.920
was released. So that's what I understood us to be talking about. Are you asking, are you asking about
00:08:52.700
from the time the film was completed being shot or from when it was released? She's asking. Again,
00:08:59.540
she's trying to divert the conversation here. And he says, did you go to Toronto Film Festival on a
00:09:05.160
movie that involved Anna Kendrick? When, she says, did you go to any, oh, it was actually Austin.
00:09:11.720
Did you go to Austin on a film that involved Anna Kendrick? And she says, yes, I just don't want to
00:09:17.880
misstate my testimony. So when you say since It Ends With Us, I just want to be clear for the record
00:09:23.620
that I understood you to be saying since It Ends With Us came out because you're testing, because you're
00:09:28.520
timestamping it from the smear campaign. And then she says, so I have done a movie since It Ends With Us
00:09:33.740
finished shooting. I have not done a movie since It Ends With Us came out and the retaliation campaign
00:09:38.120
started. Have you received any offers of employment? The attorney is asking and she says,
00:09:42.700
of employment? I don't know what that means. This made me laugh so much. How does she not know what
00:09:50.960
it means to get any offers of employment, especially because she is suing wayfarer parties and
00:10:00.600
Justin Baldoni based on the fact that she was an employee at the time all of this happened. If she wasn't
00:10:08.720
an employee, she would have no grounds to sue them because that would make her a contractor
00:10:14.400
and she wouldn't get away with this lawsuit. And here she says that she doesn't even know what it
00:10:20.020
means to receive an offer of employment. The attorney is trying to make things clearer saying, well,
00:10:27.020
has anybody offered you a role in a movie or asked you to take a look at a movie to be an actress or a
00:10:31.980
writer or director or an actor or any role? And she says, since, since when? He just pointed that
00:10:39.680
out to you. Since It Ends With Us came out. Not that I'm aware of, she says. Well, there was just a
00:10:45.280
press release in August of last year saying that Blake Lively is cast in first movie since It Ends
00:10:50.660
With Us drama. She is cast to act and produce in the movie The Survivalist. So she's not telling the
00:10:59.320
truth here. Maybe that happened after this deposition, but she did get an offer. I don't
00:11:05.820
think that movie is ever going to happen, but this is one of the things that keeps backfiring on Blake
00:11:10.640
because she keeps bragging to everyone that this isn't affecting her and she's having a wonderful life
00:11:16.520
and she's still popular and she's still getting all these parts because she doesn't want her public
00:11:22.060
image to get damaged more. So she has to pretend that she's still working and that she's still important.
00:11:29.320
But all of that, that is backfiring on her because she's claiming that they took away all her
00:11:35.660
opportunities. Anyways, they keep asking here, who are your family members that have been substantially
00:11:40.760
harmed? My husband and children. I think your husband, Ryan Reynolds, really put himself and
00:11:48.200
planted himself into this drama. If we should believe all those text messages and emails. Of course,
00:11:55.200
her children. I have sympathy for her children. No children deserves to be in a situation like this.
00:12:00.480
But anyways, anyone else? The attorney is asking. I believe that my mother, I believe, she doesn't
00:12:06.500
even know. She hasn't talked to her mother about this, that her mother is upset. We know her mom
00:12:11.040
from that Time 100 most influential people when she was fake crying or asking Blake, should I, or asking
00:12:19.300
Ryan, should I cry now? So yes, she believes her mom is harmed by this. And my siblings have been
00:12:28.300
emotionally harmed. And I believe my sister and her husband have been harmed as well. So my question
00:12:35.540
is, would any of these people be harmed if she just had moved on and not filed this lawsuit? No.
00:12:42.420
So I love this new question from Baldoni's team here asking, you won some accolades since it ends
00:12:48.820
with us has come out. Is that true? And she's like, I don't know. Were you selected having something to
00:12:56.600
do with either Time 100 or People 100? Did anyone honor you? And she's like, I don't think that's
00:13:04.280
characterized as winning an accolade. But yes, I was honored at Time 100 in the Time 100 list
00:13:09.980
and at the events. Again, these are things that are going to look so bad in front of a jury.
00:13:17.680
She claims that he ruined her career and her life. And then she's one of the most one. And then she's
00:13:23.540
on this list of Time 100 most influential people. I am sure now that Ryan Reynolds was behind that
00:13:30.200
because it made no sense whatsoever for her to be on that list. And because he was fighting so hard to
00:13:36.120
make his wife popular again, it's now backfiring because this as well does not look good in front
00:13:42.120
of a jury. I remember that during that event, I was thinking this is so bad for her case. Why are they
00:13:48.540
doing this? This is terrible. She should go into hiding. She should act like a real victim. Instead,
00:13:55.900
she was there on a red carpet showing off all the glamour, having a speech. It was just a terrible,
00:14:02.800
terrible choice. Anyways, as I said in the beginning of this episode, I wanted to mention
00:14:07.540
Josh Greenstein's deposition. He used to be the president of Sony. Now he works for Paramount.
00:14:14.840
And he's one of Blake Lively's big supporters through all of this. He was one of the people
00:14:20.620
who wrote this glowing report, this letter to PGA, Producer's Guild of America, so that Blake Lively
00:14:28.320
would get a producer credit on this movie. He's asked about that in the deposition. And he said,
00:14:34.320
yes, she's amazing. I haven't worked with anyone that's worked harder on all aspects of a movie for
00:14:40.900
25 years. So he's basically admitting that she worked on every aspect of this film. Not great for Blake,
00:14:49.660
who's trying to portray herself as a powerless victim. But anyways, this is even worse for Blake
00:14:55.820
and terrible for Sony. So he's saying in this deposition that he's asked about the marketing
00:15:02.400
campaign. And you know, Blake and Ryan and all her disciples, all of them agree that it was Justin
00:15:09.320
Baldoni and the Wayfair Party's fault that she got backlash and the rest of them got backlash during
00:15:15.220
the promotion of this movie because they told them not to talk about DV. Anyways, so here Josh is asked
00:15:23.860
by the attorneys who came up with the idea of promoting the movie the way they did. I was asked
00:15:30.220
by the attorney here, was grab their friends, wear their florals part of Sony's marketing campaign,
00:15:36.340
which was in respect to it ends with us. Yes. So you're not suggesting that someone other than
00:15:43.040
Sony came up with the concept of grab your friends, wear your florals. I don't know who came up with it,
00:15:49.800
but it was certainly part of the Sony campaign. It was embraced. He's trying to protect Blake here,
00:15:56.700
saying that they came up with this and it was a successful campaign. Because then we might believe
00:16:03.620
that the backlash that Blake received because of this wasn't organic. That's my guess here. But at the
00:16:11.140
same time, how can they blame all the bad marketing on Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair Party's
00:16:18.220
when Sony is admitting that they were behind this idea that got so much backlash, saying I don't know
00:16:24.020
who came up with it. It was certainly part of the Sony campaign. What was Sony's goal with the grab
00:16:29.040
your friends, wear your florals aspect of the marketing campaign? I assume it was to show support
00:16:34.980
for the book and Lily's character and turn it into a group outing. Why did Sony want to turn the event
00:16:40.920
into a group outing? Because how strong the movie played and the more people that saw it,
00:16:46.180
the better reactions you'd get in the world. And then he's showing him some documents here,
00:16:51.860
showing him saying that friends in floral screening plus Lily Bloom pop-up shop experience.
00:16:56.700
He's pointing out at a special event they were organizing. And he says, do you see that? He says,
00:17:01.780
what is your understanding of what this paragraph describes? And he says that we had a pop-up shop,
00:17:08.240
a Lily pop-up shop in Century City, invited a bunch of influencers to come and take pictures and videos.
00:17:13.520
And when you say we, who do you mean? And he says, Sony. Okay, are these the fun and sexy pop-up shops
00:17:21.880
that Wayfarer had early recommended? I assume so, he says. When did ever the Wayfarer parties recommend
00:17:29.680
to have a fun and sexy pop-up store? Anyways, do you see what in the middle it talks about influencers
00:17:37.940
to check out the space and partake in fun group activities, such as ironing floral patches to their denim?
00:17:46.560
Like that was Justin's idea, right. Receive temporary tattoos inspired by the film, sip Aunt Betty Boo's buzz,
00:17:55.380
and enjoy a gift bag with film-inspired goodies and screen the film in advance of the release.
00:18:00.680
Do you see that? Yes. Was this part of Sony's marketing? Yes. Okay.
00:18:05.640
And why did Sony offer visitors the ability to sip on Betty Boo's? I don't know.
00:18:12.240
Does that, is it common for these to be sponsors of films, events? Yes, very much, she says.
00:18:18.200
Do you believe it was Sony's idea? I have no clue, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.
00:18:24.740
I don't know who specifically came up with it, but I wouldn't be surprised. Why not?
00:18:29.920
Because it's Sony's job to come up with inventive ways to market the film.
00:18:34.480
So, yes. Here, Josh Greenstein from Sony says that it was their idea.
00:18:40.600
He takes the responsibility for bringing your friends and wear your florals.
00:18:50.360
Because that is some of the biggest backlash she received from promoting this movie,
00:18:58.540
And he doesn't even know if it was Sony's idea to add a product from Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds
00:19:09.620
But let's talk more about Sony here, because they also mention in this expert report.
00:19:14.740
So, Blake Lively has a lot of experts that she paid a lot of money.
00:19:19.200
I talked about, I think, four or five of them already.
00:19:24.440
His name is Michael Robbins, and he did a report on the policy of the Wayfair parties and Sony,
00:19:32.420
and the fact that they didn't take the SH claims seriously, and it was their responsibility,
00:19:40.840
Before I go through more of this report, I wanted to point out one thing that Blake Lively
00:19:45.700
says in her letter to Producers Guild of America.
00:19:50.220
As you know, she wrote this incredibly long email to them.
00:19:58.560
But anyway, she's mentioning all the things, all her things that she did as a producer of
00:20:04.200
There's a reason why she wanted this sealed, and she wanted to keep it sealed, because
00:20:10.460
Either she's lying a lot here, or this is terrible.
00:20:16.420
So she's saying here that I manage the politics and HR concerns on a daily basis, acting as
00:20:24.920
an intermediary to keep crew and cast engaged, safe, and on board.
00:20:34.840
So yeah, keep in mind that Blake Lively herself is the HR department here.
00:20:40.240
So what's really bad about this report, I have to start with that, is that this guy
00:20:43.740
is repeatedly stating that he's not determining whether harassment or retaliation actually
00:20:51.500
He's saying that I'm writing this report pretending that it happened, and what should have happened,
00:20:59.700
But he's not claiming that it actually took place, that there was any harassment on the
00:21:07.280
It's the same standard as all the other experts that I've been quoting.
00:21:12.840
And when he's saying that they should have investigated this without saying that these
00:21:17.280
claims were so serious that they should have been investigating, it makes absolutely no
00:21:22.420
You can't really say that they failed to investigate harassment when you can't really say that any
00:21:30.360
And on top of that, it was Blake Lively's responsibility as the HR person and the go-to
00:21:35.920
person on set to take this further and investigate.
00:21:39.700
Of course, this entire report is built on only information that they received from Blake Lively
00:21:45.400
And he's repeating things that he's taken out from depositions from her and other people
00:21:51.720
He's not taking into consideration anything from the other parties and from the defendants
00:21:57.500
So this looks more like advocacy for Blake than anything else.
00:22:02.040
But the interesting thing here is that they're blaming a lot on Sony as well.
00:22:07.420
They're saying here, because Sony had so much responsibility here, he's saying that Sony had an anti-harassment
00:22:15.160
policy and the policy applied to individuals performing services and Sony was made aware of complaints.
00:22:28.080
He's, of course, saying all the same things about Wayfair, but we know that she sued them.
00:22:31.840
So the question again is, why did she not sue Sony?
00:22:44.940
And it will burn Ryan Reynolds in this industry.
00:22:48.140
So that's obviously why she left Sony out of it.
00:22:51.120
And also, now that we know that Sony was behind the marketing campaign, she claims, we all
00:22:57.860
know it was also Maximum Effort, Ryan Reynolds' company.
00:23:01.500
But Josh Greenstein doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus here.
00:23:07.040
He doesn't even work for Sony anymore, by the way.
00:23:13.240
And obviously, Blake just followed advice from Sony.
00:23:19.100
And we know how much power she had on this movie.
00:23:22.160
So why would she listen to Sony when they're saying that you should do promotion like this
00:23:30.160
Because he also said that she was the one coming up with a lot of the ideas for the marketing,
00:23:37.340
He said, like, she played a part in every aspect of this film.
00:23:40.960
So yes, the more of this evidence we go through, the worse it looks for Blake.
00:23:56.840
I keep seeing people commenting saying that they have been unsubscribed without knowing about it.
00:24:01.960
So please check if you're still interested in following my channel.