u/Serenity413

Not a new depo, but re-read it again as part of the latest unsealing. Of all the many many unhinged and insane behavior from Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, this one is pretty high up there.

Per Sony exec Ange Giannetti, the January 2024 meeting was never suppose to be the “all hands return to production meeting.” This was a meeting requested by Ange to go over the script and scheduling. That’s it. Blake only says she wants to “clear the air in the beginning” and then surprises everyone by having Ryan Reynolds show up. The “clear the air in the beginning” turns into a 6 hour session of Ryan screaming and berating Justin non-stop without breaks per both Ange and Heath’s testimonies.

Imagine asking your husband to crash a routine work meeting, springing him on your colleagues and bosses, having him hijack the entire meeting away from the planned agenda to go off on his diatribe, and wasting SIX hours of everyone’s time on your ambush meeting. How utterly psychotic and ridiculous. Terrorists indeed.

The meeting was so off the rails in tone, topic and duration that both Ange Giannetti and Todd Black said they had never experienced anything like it. Ange and Todd who have been in the movie business for a long time and have undoubtedly dealt with a long list of difficult talent. For those that don’t understand the significance power imbalance between Blake (Ryan) and Justin, even a top Sony executive Ange Giannetti recognized how abusive and extended the meeting had become, but could do nothing but stay and take SIX HOURS of Ryan’s diatribe instead of shutting it down.

Ryan Reynolds is an unhinged loser who loves getting high off his abusive power trips and Blake Lively is a performative feminist who hijacks other people’s work because she incapable of doing it herself. Blake Lively was raging about the patriarchy to Justin Baldoni and Taylor Swift to get sympathy for them. Meanwhile, Blake is patriarchy personified. Blake, just own that you need your husband to take your work meetings instead of trying to pretend you are something you aren’t and cosplay as a wannabe girl boss. Girl is such a pathetic fraud.

And no, Ryan never believed Justin SHed Blake. We now know Ryan was editing the film and had access to the dailies so he knew Blake’s account of the dance and birth scenes were lies. He knew there was not one single footage that showed Justin improvising kisses or biting Blake’s lips as Blake alleges, but plenty of Blake doing it to Justin. Ryan was posting sexy photos of Justin and making jokes about Justin having sex with Blake for the film’s promo. And made Nicepool into a well-endowed beautiful physical specimen. A selection of Ryan’s unhinged text messages here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/ncMU9ZPSoK

A full list of Blake Lively’s falsified SH claims and lies, debunked with evidence:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/QYFgAGidHe

Opportunist Blake Lively lecturing the public about accepting the word “NO“ on her IG is peak delusion.

The same Blake Lively who multiple Sony executives called a fucking terrorist because of her extortion tactics after she was initially told “NO” to hijacking someone else’s hard work and project. The same Blake Lively that leaked her CRD full of fake sexual harassment claims and proven lies because she refused to accept the backlash to her IEWU promotion was due to her own actions of hawking booze and haircare.

Examples of Blake being a terrible human being because she refused to accept someone else’s “NO” and respect their boundaries:

• When Blake (Ryan) were told NO Justin would not released the unhinged statement Ryan Reynolds wrote for Justin to take accountability for Maximum Efforts’ epic level stupid marketing, Blake threatened “the gloves would come off“ and proceeded to falsely accuse Justin of sexual harassment by leaking Blake’s CRD of proven SH fabrications to the NYT
• When Blake’s (Ryan’s) idiotic rooftop re-write about crypto bros and male prostitutes was told NO by Justin, Blake brought in her dragon Taylor Swift as a threat to do what Blake wants
• When Blake was told NO by Justin to getting access to the dailies, Blake told her agent her “HR report was ready to go” and used her sham 17 point list of fake SH claims as leverage to get what she wanted
• When Blake was told NO to her getting her own cut and it violating DGA rules, Blake threatened not to promote the film and pull Taylor Swift’s song from the trailer
• When Blake was told NO her cut didn’t score higher than Justin’s cut, Blake said it didn’t matter and they were going with her cut or she & Colleen Hoover would not promote the film
• When Blake was told NO to a producer credit, she threatened Justin and Jamey with “any goodwill would be gone” and coerced them to endorse her PGA under duress
• When Sony told Blake NO to showing an unfinished cut of IEWU at Book Bonanza, Blake stole the film and showed it anyway
• When Justin told Blake (Ryan) NO to taking blame for Maximum Effort’s marketing, Ryan then demanded Sony take the blame and asked Ari Emmanuel to go full Ari on Sony CEO Tom Rothman
• When Taylor Swift told Blake NO to releasing a statement of support, Blake threatened to release 10 years of their personal text messages
• When Blake was told NO to her ridiculous wardrobe, she accused Justin of sexual harassment for crying, said Taylor Swift says the public doesn’t know what they want until you give it to them, and proceeded to blow past the wardrobe budget
• And let’s not forget Blake coerced an interviewer, who doesn’t drink, to drink and promote Ryan‘s Aviation Gin alcohol in professional setting

Blake is the epitome of celebrities who are terrible human beings, but love to sanctimoniously moralize and preach about things they disregard in their own practice.

A full list of Blake Lively countless proven lies and numerous falsified debunked sexual harassment claims:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/PyOssw0H7i

Ryan Reynolds thought he would exposed Justin Baldoni as a fraud. Instead, Justin went through an invasive and expansive legal battle, where all of Justin’s private text messages show he is the same person as he presents to the public. Genuine, well-intended, respectful, thoughtful, and not a single mean-spirited or derogatory word about anyone. 

Meanwhile, in just the small sliver of texts that were discoverable from Ryan, Ryan completely exposed himself as one of the biggest frauds in Hollywood. Martha Stewart tried to tell us that Ryan’s funny nice guy persona is not just slightly exaggerated/polished/media-trained but a completely fake costume Ryan is playacting in. And Ryan knows he’s a huge fraud, knows his wife is a huge fraud and assumes this is how everyone in Hollywood operates. Which is why Ryan was obsessive about proving Justin was one too.

• Ryan’s text messages aren’t just run of the mill off-putting or cringy stuff you might expect from a celebrity’s private messages. Entitlement, being self-centered, rudeness - all that is to be expected.
• Ryan’s text messages are entirely something else. They are a portrait into a psychopath, in my opinion. His vindictiveness, his unchecked rage, his emotional instability, his cruelty, his narcissism and narcissistic injury, his self important pontifications, his hypocrisy, his dehumanization of another human, his Machiavellian manipulations, him getting high off his power trips, his escalating demands that someone else take accountability for his disastrous marketing.
• And who can forget that Ryan Reynolds is responsible for the highly unethical Vanzan. And tried to plant evidence and cover up all his misdeeds ahead of this lawsuit with the laughably obvious ”Hi, it’s Les” text.

Nothing Justin did warranted this type of rage and vitriol from Ryan. And no, Ryan never believe Justin SHed his wife. Ryan and Blake conspired together to falsely accuse an innocent man of SH.

• The last batch of unsealed Sony messages show that Ryan leading the edit of the film. That means he saw the dailies and knew no footage existed that showed Justin improvising kisses or biting Blake‘s lips. Blake claims Justin insisted this scene was filmed over and over again. Ryan knew that was a lie. In fact, Ryan was pretending to be Blake being SHed and bitten on the lips in his texts. That also means he saw footage of Blake improvising kisses on Justin and biting Justin’s lips. That means he saw the dance scene video and knew Blake was lying about what happened in her CRD.
• Ryan wrote part of Blake’s PGA letter, which means he knows Blake (& him) was not a powerless employee but had control over everything on the set including HR. Ryan was also present during the conversation where Blake brings up circumcision and knows full well Justin wasn’t trying to sexually prey on her right in front of Ryan.
• To top it all off, Ryan created Nicepool after Justin and made Nicepool into a beautiful well-endowed physical speciman. Ryan was posting sexy photos of Justin and joking about his sex scenes with Blake. Ryan knew Blake’s SH claims were a joke, literally.

So what was the real cause of Ryan’s insane vitriol? Because Ryan is a sociopath in my opinion. One who enjoys finding a target that triggers his insecurities, bullying them, berating them, tearing them down, smearing them to others and destroying them. Bonus if he gets to steal a franchise with massive IP like Deadpool or IEWU.

• But Ryan knows it’s socially unacceptable to admit that he finds joy in destroying people. So what he does is cobble together small inane incidents in order to find a reason to vilify and dehumanize someone.
• And I don’t believe Justin was Ryan’s first victim. Stephanie Jones said Ryan terrorized the Rock. Ryan admitted he would “prey” on the Rock by going after him relentlessly and Ryan did the same juvenile caricature stunt with creating Dude to mock the Rock also.
• And can’t forget Tim Miller, Wesley Snipes, TJ Miller, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Morena Baccarin

Some of Ryan’s unhinged text messages below.

• ”I wasn't able to extricate myself from the Sony Studios Chairman's mouth.”
• “I heard you guys got a tummy bug…although it might be your body ridding itself of any residual Baldoni.
• “I'd rather be puking in a gulag than hijacking performative feminism while practicing personal growth catchphrases in the mirror.”
• ”What a complete fucking WIN this is. I know we all breathe rare air.”
• “And seeing good people put shitty people over their knee, for a good old fashioned, pants-down spanking in the supermarket is a special experience”
• “Todd and Ange are fucking textbook, ineffectual elderly people with no ideas or thoughtful communication skills. Just blunt instruments with six catchphrases and about 5 key words.”
• “I'd have your line producer's face tattooed to my perineum if he/she/they can figure out how to start two weeks earlier. Completely understand how big of an ask that is. But the perineum is one of the most nervy parts of the human body to expose to trauma.”
• “These other buckets of dumb dumb juice”
• “Let that human rounding error, Baldoni play his little game”
• “I know I sound angry but I promise you I have way more rage in the tank.”
• “His complete lack of not only remorse but self-preservation is a character study in malignant, lazy-lidded stupidity and darkness.”
• “Can Ari go full Ari on Tom (Rothman)”
• “I'd put Blake's reputation on trial any day of the week.“

ETA: Formatting

This Ryan Reynolds text is one of the less talked about ones, but it’s just as mental and psychotic as the ones that got more air time. Ryan was writing as if he was Blake Lively, experiencing fake SH as a woman firsthand.

• This narrative in Ryan’s text is what ends up in Blake’s CRD. I think a lot of Blake’s perjured CRD was narration dictated by Ryan.
• Ryan is also the one who uses the word “creep” to describe Justin, not Blake. Blake describes Justin as a doofus, a clown, scared of women. The “creep” narrative is what ends up in MSM over the summer of the movie premiere and today. Ryan believed Justin was a “creep” that he made Nicepool into a beautiful physical specimen, posted sexy pictures of Justin for the film’s promo, and joked about Blake’s sex scenes with Justin. Sure, Jan.
• And there’s no question Ryan was writing some of the texts that Blake sent to Matt Damon, Taylor Swift and Jenny Slate. But Blake’s CRD also has Ryan’s hands & voice all over it.
• Ryan lies that people (Liz Plank) reached out to Blake, but we saw from his texts that it was Ryan who reached out to Liz Plank. Ryan was just as big of a scheming diabolical plotter to frame a man as a sexual predator as Blake, but he tried to keep his hands clean by having only Blake take the fall publicly.
• Narcissist injury personified Ryan even pressured Sony to release a statement he wrote for them to take accountability for his Maximum Effort’s astonishingly tone-deaf and terrible marketing. Ryan and Blake are perfect for each other. Both incapable of taking accountability for anything.

And the audacity of Ryan to talk about having “enough of a male gaze on a female subject manner.” When Ryan ghostwrote the script of a DV movie, one which is based on a book that he never read and focused on a theme Ryan knows nothing about. Of course “white savior” Ryan had to insert himself into a film he has nothing to do with to “save” the film by adding the so very important Ryan Reynolds humor about male prostitutes and crypto bros. And Ryan had his hands all over the edit.

And top it off, Ryan was openly co-opting his wife’s voice and feelings. He’s cosplaying being SHed as his wife in the very text he’s lambasting a male gaze on a female subject manner. Nothing about Ryan and Blake is authentic. Everything they say are just meaningless focus-group approved talking points to them to grab a sanctimonious high ground, not because they actually believe it. They are huge hypocrites with zero integrity and never practice what they preach.

ETA: Linking the full list of all the extensive amount of lies Blake (Ryan) told in this saga.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/YYKFx6Ol1z

I wanted to revisit this lie by Blake Lively because I still see comments that inadvertently perpetuate the false narrative that both Justin Baldoni & Blake Lively were improvising kisses equally.

18 months later with full discovery, videos and depositions - the evidence shows that it was ONLY Blake Lively who improvised kissing on the lips - multiple times in multiple scenes on Justin. Justin improvised a forehead kiss during the dance scene montage. 

Where did the false narrative come from that Justin was improvising kisses? 

• The NYT hit piece by Megan Twohey and Blake’s CRD, which shows how effective the NYT smear machine is that people still believe this happened 18 months later.
• Recall in Blake’s CRD - she claimed “Mr. Baldoni discreetly bit and sucked on Ms. Lively’s lower lip during a scene in which he improvised numerous kisses on each take that were not pre-approved in the script and without an intimacy coordinator there. Mr. Baldoni insisted on shooting the full scene over and over again.”

This is categorically a SH fabrication made up by Blake Lively.

• 18 months later - Blake has never even identified what this scene was. Blake has not provided a single video evidence of this - a scene she claims was filmed over and over at Justin’s insistence. Blake entirely drops this claim in her MSJ response. Justin is never asked about this allegation by Michael Gottlieb during his 2-day deposition. 
• Blake’s lawyers said 50,000 hours of raw video footage were turned over to them. Yet they could not find a single video showing Justin improvised kissing on the lips that they could submit as evidence.

The evidence shows Blake was the ONLY one improvising kissing on Justin.

• We all saw the hospital video where Blake improvised an unscripted kiss on Justin during a sterile scene
• This scene was apparently filmed 8 times with Blake improvising a kiss each time 
• We all saw the video of Blake bitting Justin’s lips during a kissing scene outside Atlas’s restaurant
• Blake was also improvising a different number of kisses during the engagement scene

It’s no wonder why Blake asked Sony to delete the dailies. Because the dailies showed Justin did not improvise unscripted kissing on Blake or bite her lips. It was actually Blake and only Blake that did everything she falsely accused Justin of. 

And this is just one of the 15+ SH incidents that Blake falsified in NYT to defame Justin. The full list of all of Blake’s many lies here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/7bnCsJ4vyh

Puck once again not afraid to call out Blake Lively’s bs spin unlike the rest of MSM. Anyone with common sense knows Blake lost.

Also - after Blake Lively falsified at least 15 SH incidents in NYT and weaponized 47.1, which is meant to protect real victims not multi-millionaire false accusers whose 15 lawyers went forum shopping, Blake’s team is trying to shift the blame of 47.1 being deemed unconstitutional to Justin. Blake Lively is such a disgrace.

Article:

https://puck.news/yes-the-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-case-has-a-winner/

I’ve seen plenty of cases settle on the eve of trial. But none quite like Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni, where a deal to end the lawsuit ostensibly about a post-It Ends With Us smear campaign instantly metastasized into a second narrative war over the settlement itself—whether money changed hands, who blinked, and who walked away most wounded. I questioned the wisdom of this litigation from the start, but after Lively sacrificed so much to get this far—turning over documents, enduring discovery, dragging friends and colleagues into the blast radius—it was strange to witness her getting cold feet two weeks before trial. She may assert otherwise, but that’s my read, at least: Baldoni has come away from the settlement with the upper hand.

Lively’s reps still claim she has a plausible path to emerging victorious in Judge Lewis Liman’s courtroom. But much depends on what she’s now asking of him. Lively’s legal team is hinging much of the remaining case on how the settlement has preserved her ability to win money from California Civil Code § 47.1, also known as California’s Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, the state’s relatively new #MeToo-era privilege. The statute grants those who report sexual misconduct and then face retaliatory defamation suits the ability to recover attorneys’ fees, treble damages, and potentially punitive awards, too.

In other words, Lively is effectively placing a large bet on a legal theory that has yet to be meaningfully tested. So this week, I spent time going back and forth with her legal team, including Boies Schiller partner Sigrid McCawley, pressing them on what exactly they are trying to accomplish, why they made this gamble, and why they nonetheless view the outcome as a victory. I can’t say they persuaded me, but their explanation is worth hearing.

Whatever happens from here, McCawley told me, the effort was worthwhile. “The goal was really to expose this horrific online retaliation campaign that came as a result of a woman standing up for herself and others in the workplace,” she said. “So that has been done. That has been accomplished.”

Actually, I found this the least persuasive part of the argument. Yes, there were revelations buried in the unsealed summary judgment exhibits, but there was never any full presentation of what those documents supposedly proved—no cross-examination, no narrative construction, no real contextualization. That’s what trials are for. Indeed, it’s what Judge Liman himself emphasized when weighing the dueling summary judgment motions.

And if the evidence were truly as devastating as advertised, why not put it in front of a jury? McCawley declined to discuss the settlement deliberations, citing mediation privilege and the need to protect those communications. Fair enough. But one must inevitably conclude that Lively’s team weighed the risks of a trial and saw enough potential downside ahead to seek another path. There’s no shame in that decision. Still, it’s hard to spin abandoning the trial they demanded as an unequivocal triumph.

Nevertheless, McCawley agreed with my assessment that Lively had essentially taken the narrower case that Liman left standing—remember, he tossed many of the sexual-harassment claims on technical grounds while allowing a retaliation-focused trial to proceed—and repackaged it into a § 47.1 motion, which likewise centers on retaliatory litigation and speech. “It streamlines it,” McCawley told me.

I can see some logic there. The move sidesteps a few thornier defenses—like whether Baldoni’s camp had motives beyond retaliation for its public messaging—and perhaps spares both Lively and husband Ryan Reynolds some deeply uncomfortable hours on the witness stand. Instead of relitigating the entire It Ends With Us production saga, the focus shifts squarely to whether Baldoni’s side should face consequences for initiating legal action against her.

The problem, as I see it, is that the § 47.1 gambit would have been stronger had Lively actually gone through with the trial. The California statute requires, among other things, that the underlying complaint of sexual misconduct be made without malice—in other words, that Lively had a reasonable basis for raising concerns about what happened on set, rather than using those allegations as leverage to seize creative control of the film. But by settling before trial, there was never any factual finding on that central dispute. Nor was there any meaningful assessment of damages, which makes the request for trebled compensatory damages and a punitive award feel, at least for now, somewhat aspirational.

McCawley’s response was essentially that trials aren’t always necessary for fee-shifting statutes to bite. She pointed to anti-SLAPP proceedings, where prevailing parties routinely recover fees without a jury verdict, and floated the possibility of an evidentiary hearing to resolve any lingering factual disputes—a sort of mini-trial by another name. She also directed me to a notable line in the parties’ joint settlement statement, where they acknowledged that Lively, with respect to her workplace complaints, “deserved to be heard.” McCawley argued that this language itself supports the idea that Lively had a reasonable basis for speaking up.

Maybe. But again, this remains an untested statute, and there’s simply no clear precedent for how Judge Liman will approach it. The first time he encountered § 47.1, he effectively punted, telling Lively that she could pursue the issue later if she wished. Now she’s making it the centerpiece of her strategy—without anyone really knowing how the law operates in practice, or whether it ultimately operates here at all. (On Monday, after Lively’s lawyers requested further briefing, the judge told the parties he didn’t need it at this time.)

That’s because there are still substantial threshold questions lurking beneath the surface. A New York federal judge asked to apply a California retaliation statute to fallout stemming from a New Jersey film shoot could easily conclude the law doesn’t reach that far. Liman’s own prior rulings offer a mixed scorecard on the jurisdictional front. And for the true legal nerds: There’s the very real possibility that § 47.1 collides with the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which broadly protects petitioning activity—including, potentially, the act of filing a defamation lawsuit like the one Baldoni tried. Imagine the irony if this entire saga ends not with a sweeping #MeToo victory, but with a court declaring California’s new survivor-protection statute unconstitutional

But perhaps the strangest aspect of the settlement—and certainly the least remarked upon—has been the agreement barring either side from appealing Judge Liman’s forthcoming ruling. What exactly was the point of that? McCawley’s answer was essentially prophylactic: No appeals means no prolonged chase for the money. Fine. But Lively’s co-counsel Michael Gottlieb recently told Matt Belloni on The Town that “this litigation has never been principally about the cash.”

So if it’s not the money, why lock yourselves out of appellate review? My prediction: Liman awards Lively some portion of her fees tied to defending against Baldoni’s claims in the case’s early stages, while rejecting the more ambitious asks—trebled damages, punitive damages, the truly eye-watering numbers. Even that outcome, however, would hardly seem to justify the tens of millions reportedly burned on this legal crusade. And if things go worse—if Liman not only pares back the recovery but concludes that § 47.1 runs afoul of constitutional protections—are we really supposed to believe that Lively’s team wouldn’t wish to appeal? Do you think they’d watch California’s shiny new #MeToo statute get blown up and simply move on?

Nick Shapiro, who handles P.R. for Lively’s camp, jumped in at that point in the conversation with the political argument. Consider the optics, he said: What if Baldoni, the self-styled male feminist, became the man who helped strip legal protections from women who report misconduct? “How do you think that’s going to go over?” he asked.

It’s a fair enough point as pressure campaigns go, but it’s not a legal argument. And the quietly damning thing about that exchange is what it reveals about the bind Lively’s team now finds itself in: After two-plus years of insisting this was about accountability, facts, and what actually happened on that New Jersey set, their clearest path forward runs not through a courtroom, but the court of public opinion. Which is, of course, exactly where this whole thing started.