I think many of us have been glued to this case because it channeled our own pain and trauma, and that's why the fantasy of Lively and Reynolds being forced to issue a public statement taking full ownership of the abuse they committed was so appealing. It felt like if Wayfarer could get that, it would be a win for everyone who never got closure on their pain.

That's the thing, though. Nobody gets closure on their pain—because that's how abuse works. Abusers don't take responsibility and say sorry. It's the very definition of abuse that the abuser refuses to acknowledge that's what they did. So if Lively and Reynolds couldn't issue even one teensy weensy little apology for their botched promo tour, how on earth could anyone expect them to give an earth-shattering confession admitting to stealing a movie, abusing the court process with a sham lawsuit, and lying about sexual harassment? It would never happen. Wayfarer knew that. They've always known that.

It makes me sad that this is the unavoidable outcome. The more I sit with it though, the more I know this is just the loudest proof that everyone in the Wayfarer parties aren't just innocent, they're victims of abuse. Because every abuse victim I know walks away with no apology, no closure. They walk away, relieved to just get away.

I'm personally deeply relieved that Wayfarer was spared from the additional abuse they would've experienced by going to trial. Gottlieb and co. were downright cruel to them in their depositions, and that was only two days. They would've had to endure that treatment every day for WEEKS. Settlement is a huge win for them. A really, really big win. They paid nothing, walked away, and can now focus on healing.

So while I'm not satisfied with the public statement, I get it. I understand, too well, that victims don't get the closure they deserve. They have to take the high road, because it's the only road that's left when the abuser has burnt all bridges and destroyed all other paths.

But at least Wayfarer is still walking, and now, they can choose any destination they want.

I think many of us have been glued to this case because it channeled our own pain and trauma, and that's why the fantasy of Lively and Reynolds being forced to issue a public statement taking full ownership of the abuse they committed was so appealing. It felt like if Wayfarer could get that, it would be a win for everyone who never got closure on their pain.

That's the thing, though. Nobody gets closure on their pain—because that's how abuse works. Abusers don't take responsibility and say sorry. It's the very definition of abuse that the abuser refuses to acknowledge that's what they did. So if Lively and Reynolds couldn't issue even one teensy weensy little apology for their botched promo tour, how on earth could anyone expect them to give an earth-shattering confession admitting to stealing a movie, abusing the court process with a sham lawsuit, and lying about sexual harassment? It would never happen. Wayfarer knew that. They've always known that.

It makes me sad that this is the unavoidable outcome. The more I sit with it though, the more I know this is just the loudest proof that everyone in the Wayfarer parties aren't just innocent, they're victims of abuse. Because every abuse victim I know walks away with no apology, no closure. They walk away, relieved to just get away.

I'm personally deeply relieved that Wayfarer was spared from the additional abuse they would've experienced by going to trial. Gottlieb and co. were downright cruel to them in their depositions, and that was only two days. They would've had to endure that treatment every day for WEEKS. Settlement is a huge win for them. A really, really big win. They paid nothing, walked away, and can now focus on healing.

So while I'm not satisfied with the public statement, I get it. I understand, too well, that victims don't get the closure they deserve. They have to take the high road, because it's the only road that's left when the abuser has burnt all bridges and destroyed all other paths.

But at least Wayfarer is still walking, and now, they can choose any destination they want.

I see that there's still lingering confusion and worry about the effects of the stipulation, so I want to dispel some of the misconceptions about what it says and why Wayfarer did it.

Again, the stipulation says

>

What the Stipulation Does NOT Mean

Sexual harassment claims

❌ "We agree that Blake Lively had a good-faith, reasonable belief that she was sexually harassed"

❌ "We agree that Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about sexual harassment"

❌"We agree that Lively actually experienced sexual harassment"

❌ "We agree to never challenge Lively's claims of sexual harassment and call her a liar"

Identifying the protected activity

❌ "We are identifying the protected activity from Lively's list of 5 options"

❌ "We are identifying the date and nature of the protected activity"

❌ "We are identifying the date of the start of the alleged retaliation"

The FEHA retaliation claim

❌ "We agree that keeping the FEHA retaliation claim is legitimate"

❌"We agree that we will not appeal this claim"

What the Stipulation Does Mean

✅ "We agree that the jury instructions will use these exact words: 'presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment'"

That's it! Wayfarer agreed to jury instruction language and nothing more. Nothing! They gave up nothing. They reserved all their rights to say at a later time that Lively made false and malicious claims, including during trial if it comes up.

So Why Did Wayfarer Agree To This?

Because Liman fucked them. Period. Even though he officially dismissed Lively's sexual harassment claims, Lively and Reynolds flat out told Wayfarer that they didn't think that had any effect on the trial and they were going to move forward as if the claims still existed. Then, they drowned Wayfarer with 1,000 exhibits and a list of 41 witnesses. So Wayfarer asked Liman to intervene and force team Lively to cut down on these lists to match the scope of the remaining claims. Wayfarer made this request one month ago, on March 25.

In the April 28 hearing, Liman still did not address this request. Remember that brief 15 minute hearing on April 2 that we couldn't listen to because the phone call was messed up? Remember how he was supposed to address Wayfarer's request in that hearing but then they decided not to because he dropped his order an hour before it started?

HE HAS SPENT A MONTH AVOIDING MAKING LIVELY CUT DOWN HER WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST

This is why Wayfarer stipulated. Liman has been telling them for a month that he's going to let Lively turn this into a sexual harassment trial unless they agree to let him keep his ridiculous FEHA retaliation claim in. So they said fine, fuck you and your cheating, we'll stipulate jury instruction language so you can keep your stupid claim, and in return we get another layer of legal protection to justify keeping out all the sexual harassment stuff that you should have kept out anyway.

Would It Really Be So Bad If They Let the Sexual Harassment Evidence In?

Yes. The truth and evidence is on their side, but the judge and the media are not. Look at how vulnerable we are as the public to being able to follow what happened in the April 28 hearing. We were relying on a single person to live-tweet what was said. Look at how even he skipped over one of the most important parts, the stipulation! He probably didn't think it was a big deal but it ended up being a huge deal. That kind of information getting lost in translation is not good.

Now imagine that single person is the NYT, Deadline, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, People. All of Ryan Reynolds' paid media minions. They're going to be there every day of the trial, spinning the shit out of what's said. This is still going to happen no matter what, but which cherry-picked tweet does more damage to Justin Baldoni?

Option 1: "Isabela Ferrer testifies that Baldoni forced her to lick cookie dough off a spoon in a sexual manner without her consent"

Option 2: "Dana Mayzlin testifies that Baldoni smeared Lively by boosting Kjersti Flaa's little bump video"

As you can see, the impact on the public is totally different. That's why Wayfarer agreed to stipulate. Liman "hard-bargained" them into it to keep the sexual harassment witnesses/exhibits and spin out. They gave up nothing in terms of their legal rights, but did everything they could to keep the trial focused on retaliation so they could protect Baldoni and the other Wayfarer parties from an even bigger smear during the trial.

Thank you for coming to my JedTalk.

Wayfarer's request to cut down on Lively's witness and exhibit lists: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1264.0.pdf

Stipulation: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1422.0.pdf

I see that there's still lingering confusion and worry about the effects of the stipulation, so I want to dispel some of the misconceptions about what it says and why Wayfarer did it.

Again, the stipulation says

>"The Wayfarer Defendants agree that for purposes of trial only and with respect to the FEHA retaliation claim, the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment."

What the Stipulation Does NOT Mean

Sexual harassment claims

❌ "We agree that Blake Lively had a good-faith, reasonable belief that she was sexually harassed"

❌ "We agree that Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about sexual harassment"

❌"We agree that Lively actually experienced sexual harassment"

❌ "We agree to never challenge Lively's claims of sexual harassment and call her a liar"

Identifying the protected activity

❌ "We are identifying the protected activity from Lively's list of 5 options"

❌ "We are identifying the date and nature of the protected activity"

❌ "We are identifying the date of the start of the alleged retaliation"

The FEHA retaliation claim

❌ "We agree that keeping the FEHA retaliation claim is legitimate"

❌"We agree that we will not appeal this claim"

What the Stipulation Does Mean

✅ "We agree that the jury instructions will use these exact words: 'presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment'"

That's it! Wayfarer agreed to jury instruction language and nothing more. Nothing! They gave up nothing. They reserved all their rights to say at a later time that Lively made false and malicious claims, including during trial if it comes up.

So Why Did Wayfarer Agree To This?

Because Liman fucked them. Period. Even though he officially dismissed Lively's sexual harassment claims, Lively and Reynolds flat out told Wayfarer that they didn't think that had any effect on the trial and they were going to move forward as if the claims still existed. Then, they drowned Wayfarer with 1,000 exhibits and a list of 41 witnesses. So Wayfarer asked Liman to intervene and force team Lively to cut down on these lists to match the scope of the remaining claims. Wayfarer made this request one month ago, on March 25.

In the April 28 hearing, Liman still did not address this request. Remember that brief 15 minute hearing on April 2 that we couldn't listen to because the phone call was messed up? Remember how he was supposed to address Wayfarer's request in that hearing but then they decided not to because he dropped his order an hour before it started?

HE HAS SPENT A MONTH AVOIDING MAKING LIVELY CUT DOWN HER WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST

This is why Wayfarer stipulated. Liman has been telling them for a month that he's going to let Lively turn this into a sexual harassment trial unless they agree to let him keep his ridiculous FEHA retaliation claim in. So they said fine, fuck you and your cheating, we'll stipulate jury instruction language so you can keep your stupid claim, and in return we get another layer of legal protection to justify keeping out all the sexual harassment stuff that you should have kept out anyway.

Would It Really Be So Bad If They Let the Sexual Harassment Evidence In?

Yes. The truth and evidence is on their side, but the judge and the media are not. Look at how vulnerable we are as the public to being able to follow what happened in the April 28 hearing. We were relying on a single person to live-tweet what was said. Look at how even he skipped over one of the most important parts, the stipulation! He probably didn't think it was a big deal but it ended up being a huge deal. That kind of information getting lost in translation is not good.

Now imagine that single person is the NYT, Deadline, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, People. All of Ryan Reynolds' paid media minions. They're going to be there every day of the trial, spinning the shit out of what's said. This is still going to happen no matter what, but which cherry-picked tweet does more damage to Justin Baldoni?

Option 1: "Isabela Ferrer testifies that Baldoni forced her to lick cookie dough off a spoon in a sexual manner without her consent"

Option 2: "Dana Mayzlin testifies that Baldoni smeared Lively by boosting Kjersti Flaa's little bump video"

As you can see, the impact on the public is totally different. That's why Wayfarer agreed to stipulate. Liman "hard-bargained" them into it to keep the sexual harassment witnesses/exhibits and spin out. They gave up nothing in terms of their legal rights, but did everything they could to keep the trial focused on retaliation so they could protect Baldoni and the other Wayfarer parties from an even bigger smear during the trial.

Thank you for coming to my JedTalk.

Wayfarer's request to cut down on Lively's witness and exhibit lists: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1264.0.pdf

Stipulation: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1422.0.pdf

RECAP

During Andy's live with Karol and Teresa this morning, he asked if Liman gave any indication about how he's leaning towards the outstanding motions. Theresa answered that both teams were pressing him on this issue to get a better sense of the scope of the trial, particularly regarding the motions in limine and the renewed MJOP about the FEHA retaliation claim.

According to Theresa, Liman ordered Wayfarer to tell him by tomorrow if they are going to a) dispute any of Lively's evidence of sexual harassment or b) stipulate. If Wayfarer stipulates, that means they are agreeing that Lively had a reasonable, good-faith basis to make claims of sexual harassment. If they dispute, that means Lively can bring in any and all evidence of sexual harassment into the trial even though the official legal claims for that are dead.

Liman said Wayfarer's answer will determine how he rules on the FEHA decision.

DISCUSSION

Now why on god's green earth would Wayfarer agree that Lively had a good-faith basis to make her sexual harassment claims??? We all know it's a fucking farce!

Secondly, why would their answer have any effect on his decision on FEHA anyway? He is either literate and can read that California law does not support him keeping this ridiculous claim in, or he's a biased goon for team Lively who will pretzel himself into Cirque du Soleil proportions to keep it in. That's it. Those are the only two options.

This is why Wayfarer wanted to unseal Natasha Heath's birthing video. They know that Liman has intended all along to let Lively and Reynolds treat this like he didn't throw out 10 of her 13 claims, and will let them act like it's still a sexual harassment trial. That video is going to blow her "wah wah wah I'm fighting for women" bullshit out of the stratosphere and they're ready for it.

God I'm so over him. But he best believe that Wayfarer will bring the fire to the trial just like they did today, and when they hold his feet to that fire and turn his toes into little crispy sausages, he's going to look just as big of a fool as Lively will.

DISCLAIMER: This post is based on the original video that Andy from Popcorned Planet filmed live this morning, which was 4 hours long. Now that the video has been updated, it's been shortened to a 18 minute recap. So the section I'm talking about is now gone. :/ In the updated version with just the recap, Theresa completely changed what she said to push for her theory that Freedman should've filed a MTD 🙄 So we'll have to get confirmation from other attendees that Liman asked Wayfarer to make a decision between dispute vs stipulate.

Updated video: https://www.youtube.com/live/erhNOzYEHQ0