Lively v. Baldoni 5 - Lawyer Reacts to Blake's Complaint

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:26 Thomas: And welcome to Gavel Gavel. This is episode 5 of Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni. Thomas, that's Lydia. How are you doing?

0:00:33 Lydia: Hi, I'm sneaking in to say hello, and I'm doing pretty well. How are you?

0:00:37 Thomas: Are you sneaking in? What are you talking about?

0:00:38 Lydia: Don't know.

0:00:39 Thomas: You're here. We're both here. I don't know what you're talking about.

0:00:43 Lydia: Don t know, I just have to be here, I guess.

0:00:45 Thomas: I feel like, okay, bye. No, you're here for the whole episode. Do I need to check the calendar? What's happening? This point, we have now, I'm assuming everyone's listened to the first four. Hopefully at this point we have gone through Blake Lively's first complaint in its entirety, and while I've spouted off a time or two about the law, and a lot of that is based on our discussion in the background with a California employment time to to have the lawyer on. It's time to have Anne back on the show and really dig in. I'm going to run my theories past her. I want to see if she has any insight into this subpoena thing that I've already spent too much time on. Those things. It'S just one of those little details that I really just am dying to know. About just this complaint in general and how unique it is. And then we're going to dig into the causes of action in Blake Lively's complaint, get that legal analysis. So that's what Ann Linder is going to be here to do. And I'm so glad that we have her. This break, we will get on over to that. And one more reminder, check out Where There's Woke because we recorded a double episode on a kind of a different angle on the Kirstie Flaw stuff. Stuff that's not so much about anything law but it is about the of that and how stupid it was

0:01:55 Lydia: Like uh consuming information right and kind you had some really great points um how we can all be a little bit more skeptical about what is being fed to us especially especially in a very heightened moment like this.

0:02:06 Thomas: Like I think it's worthwhile hope you go check that out all you want avoid the annoying ads right now, go to patreon .com slash gavel pod pledge. And also there will be bonus stuff around this. I have so many ideas, but we got to get caught up first.

0:02:18 Lydia: Also access to all of the Trump trial episodes.

0:02:21 Thomas: True. And not just that we had some bonuses back from that era that weren't the Trump that were super interesting.

0:02:28 Lydia: Yeah, I think there was a thing, maybe.

0:02:30 Thomas: We covered the Young Thug hearings. Those were

0:02:32 Lydia: And I feel like there was like a Rudy one in there, too.

0:02:33 Thomas: Good. Definitely. Rude Giuliani. All All good things. All good thing. Very true. So check all that out. Patreon .com slash gavel pod. Thanks so much to our supporters. After this, we'll get on with an actual lawyer. And right. So I've got my bank that I'm going to crack with a hammer here to see if we can afford to call our lawyer and to help us with some of these insights. All right, Ann, how's it going?

0:03:01 Anne: Hello. On call. Ready for duty.

0:03:04 Lydia: Time we're starting now yeah

0:03:06 Thomas: So talk to us about how weird it is. And it's funny because we also have experience in this, but how weird is it to have this legal complaint, or I guess even the CRD complaint, either or, they end up being about the same, that has all these text messages in it. That's not the norm, right?

0:03:22 Anne: Absolutely not the norm. Complaints should usually be a pretty dry document, right? Is what we we call it like notice pleading, right? You're just giving the other parties notice of basically what you're complaining about, what causes of action you're bringing, who against, basically the outer edges of the scope of what we're talking about here. Rest of it sort of gets filled in as you go through discovery, blah, blah. Sometimes you find out more information and you go back and you amend your complaint. That's very common. There's an introduction section, where you lay out some of the basic facts, so that then when you get to sort of the factual background, and then the claims, there's some background of reference for what you're talking about. But what we've seen in these cases is like, just sections full of all of this evidence that's absolutely extraneous to what is supposed to be happening in these documents uh in both you're just sort of seeing all these things that uh a judge would look at and be like what are we doing here right this is not the moment for this um

0:04:11 Thomas: Really? Oh, Lively's or for both? Right. Of put a finer point on that, let's forget everything else. Let's reset. Let's hypothetical, just clean slate. We're not talking about this case. I think, there's let'S some sort of improper happening against me, I'm trying to think, I'm not the lawyer, I can't think of what the tort would be, but something, well, I guess civil conspiracy, I don't know. Now, it's something where I wouldn't know about it usually, but for somehow Blake Lively got access to all these text messages. I'm trying to think of the hypothetical, like, how would she write this without these text messages? But then I'm like, I don't know how she would even know about it. You know, so it's, is do you think about that? Yeah. You just say like, I'm pretty sure something fishy is going on here. You know? She didn't have these texts. How would she even do this complaint?

0:04:59 Anne: Yeah you would sort of say on information and belief right these defendants have done these things to Blake and blah, blah, and then they would respond and say, well, that's not true. And we leave you to your proofs and we go, great. That's what discovery is for, right? So information and belief can do a lot of heavy lifting and at the complaint stage where you don't necessarily have access to a bunch of evidence. If you're doing something and you do have some evidence and there's maybe a benefit to signaling to the other side that you've got receipts, right, Right. Some sometimes you do want to include that in your complaint because it serves a purpose outside of, you know, convincing the judge. Right. It's serving a purpose in terms of forcing parties towards settlement or something else.

0:05:42 Lydia: And so in this case the utilization of text messages and things things of that nature is really for public consumption I think

0:05:51 Thomas: But that was the point I was making is it's it might be, But I also feel like for this particular complaint, if you're alleging, hey, these people conspired to take me down behind the scenes, I feel like the text message is saying, hey. Let's conspire to take this person down behind. The scenes are not like irrelevant.

0:06:06 Lydia: No but I I I was just gonna say yeah like I think couldn't theoretically stephanie jones have called blake and said hey some you scoop for you that I I think this has been going on mean and I stephani jones would have known about this anyway because it was affiliated with her firm first so they didn't need the text messages because that would be the information right the and belief stephanie jones's information to you and then you can put the complaint there so it feels like the text message is um the jump are really for trying to turn the tide of public opinion.

0:06:20 Thomas: She was kind of part of it. Yeah.

0:06:40 Thomas: I mean, I can certainly relate. You know like we went through a thing where we did almost exactly this like tried to speak through a complaint to a certain amount to get because otherwise you're not supposed to say jack shit it's the worst you're supposed to be completely silent in the meantime imagine what Blake Lively's thinking she just went through out of nowhere she's going from her perspective again we'll take people's you know once we go through um complaint we'll take it from his perspective. From her perspective, she's going through a weird thing where out of nowhere, someone posts a video from 2016 and everybody's bagging on her. And she feels like, what just happened? Like I was all of a sudden just with this weird, in what her mind, I have to imagine would feel like a very bizarre hate campaign. And then she finds out like, oh shit, this is someone doing this to me. And furthermore, again, from her perspective. It's the guy that sexually harassed me. I could understand being pretty pissed and being like, I'm going to expose to try to get out to the public that this was like a dirty from a person who claimed to be a feminist and talked about believing women, even when they're talking about you to now be trying to take me down. And I have these messages. Yeah, I I'm gonna fucking put them in the complaint to all of us would literally all

0:07:53 Thomas: Of this would do that.

0:07:54 Anne: I Absolutely. I mean, in my experience, if what you're trying to do is force parties towards sentiment, just being like, hey, don't make us even file this complaint. You know you were wrong. You would put those text messages, and I'm sure they probably did, in the private letters exchanged between the attorneys, right, saying, hey, we've got proof. It's not going to look good for you. Your choices based on that. The the extent large extent that They were included in these, public these complaints. That's definitely for public consumption. Assumption I

0:08:21 Thomas: Well maybe we can take a moment to about so a normal non public relations mess. Mess. Likely going to have letters sent back and forth at first, kind of threatening litigation or trying to start, you about that. I more geared toward let's get this resolved. Let's possibly get like a settlement going when you're not talking about this like big public relations mess. Right.

0:08:42 Anne: I mean and again I'm not an employment lawyer. I've done like one employment case as a, you defense attorney. But yeah, there's always an outreach beforehand. Hey, there's a matter. Who should I talk with? Great. Here's the posture of the case. Here's how we see things, you of feeling both sides out. Definitely you'd try to avoid litigation when you can, because it's a slow, low expensive mess for everyone um so the there's strategic reasons or why a might decide that that's the best route for them or um it might be need to be done but usually yes you're right there's always a some some preamble to it no

0:09:16 Thomas: The The reason I bring it up is my prediction as of now is, has been that this this, may very well go all the way to trial because I don't know how much Blake is just looking for like, Hey, throw me a few, a hundred thousand or maybe a million dollars for a settlement. I DONT think that's at all what she's interested in because except that, Baldoni uh, has a billionaire backing him. Not quite.

0:09:31 Anne: That would be she's more powerful and richer than far than who's his what What?

0:09:39 Lydia: Steve Sarowitz 2 .7 billion dollars. He was the of Paylocity uh

0:09:43 Anne: What?

0:09:44 Thomas: But Baldoni does have a billionaire backing him. That's why I think this will go to trial because they both. So when we're talking about normal people, we're talking about just every day someone got harassed at work or whatever they're looking for. And I would be if I got harassing work. I'm looking for, you know, a settlement. I'M looking to be made whole for whatever happened. Maybe I got fired. Maybe I got whatever it was. IM looking to BE made whole. In this case, we'RE dealing with Blake Blake Lively and and, Ryan Reynolds, their job is their reputation. Like that is almost entirely what their living is. And so they're not looking for like, oh, give me a certain amount of money to make up for like what happened. I think they need to prevail. And this is just my opinion. I feel like they're going to need to prevail in a way that will salvage and repair what they perceive has been a wrong done to them. That's their entire, reputation you and that's how they get work, you So like, I don'T really see this settling, to be honest with you, but I, who knows? We're a long way away from that. But the only reason I bring it up is you talk about the, letters back and forth, and I donT know how much those would have been done in a genuine way of trying to like settle quietly because I don' t think it was ever about that.

0:10:45 Anne: No, that makes a lot of sense. And it's very possible. I mean, sometimes, right, things just come out of the blue where it's like, boom, I filed a thing against you. This case, again, seems like the relationships may have broken down to such an extent that there was some last straw. Maybe, you Blake got that tip off. They orchestrated this thing. She was just like, fuck it. Now we're at war, right?

0:11:04 Thomas: So that brings me to a question that I'm not sure you'll be able to help us with because I DON'T think anyone can. What is this subpoena? So So we talked about Stephanie Jones, just to reset. JonesWorks.

0:11:14 Anne: I don't know what Stephanie Jones looks like, but I'm picturing Samantha Jones from Sex and the City, just so you know.

0:11:19 Thomas: Go with that.

0:11:19 Anne: That's who this person is in my mind.

0:11:21 Thomas: So Jen Abl works, Baldoni and Wayfair as a client at JonesWorkz, and this is the PR firm, but then leaves JonesWorkx. And it seems like probably under some not super happy circumstances, Baldoni And Wayfarer as a client, essentially. But she has to leave her work phone to Stephanie Jones and that's Stephanie Jones's Jones works property, right? I mean if it's a work phone, Stephanie Jones had every right to like keep that when Jen Abel left and look at it, right. Right.

0:11:46 Anne: Absolutely. Like, one little bit of employment law that I do know is you have no expectation of the right to privacy when you're working on or using employer -issued devices, whether they're computers or phones or whatever, right.

0:11:58 Thomas: Is that regardless of if you're doing like personal stuff on it or work stuff, it's kind of regardless. Right.

0:12:03 Anne: Right, like, so if you you have your own phone, like I do, but like, employer pays $50 a month or whatever to offset your phone bill, it's still your phone. But if it's like a, you Know, your employer issues your phone and is like, Yeah, you can totally use it for personal stuff. Yeah, okay, but be aware that they still have the right to search your phone?

0:12:20 Lydia: And

0:12:23 Thomas: And so now is the place where it might get a little tricky, but it seems pretty clear from the fact that Stephanie Jones was not named in Blake Lively's lawsuit. She sue Jones Works, even pretend none of this happened. And Blake Latively was just trying to sue everyone who was responsible for taking her down. She would definitely have included Stephanie Jones and or Jones works in that. Right. Because they represented Baldoni and Wayfarer for a period of time during this. Right?

0:12:47 Lydia: Abel was one of their employees at the time yeah

0:12:49 Thomas: You sue everyone and let sort sort sort it out is usually.

0:12:51 Anne: Especially at the beginning, yeah, you just like cover the whole field and let each of them, you then we sorted out later right we're shooting first and asking questions later let

0:12:57 Thomas: So I've taken it as a pretty strong sign that Stephanie Jones, and I think everyone pretty much thinks this, but I just want to make sure we're, you solid factual ground and that Now, we're not getting anything wrong legally, but considering that Stephanie Jones and Jones are not being sued, and it seems pretty clear that they are the source of these text messages that Blake Lively had, we get to the next part, which is the New York Times and Blake Lively, excuse both said that this was obtained, oh, how do you have the wording? I

0:13:22 Lydia: Lively obtained the communication set forth in this complaint through legal process, including a civil subpoena.

0:13:28 Thomas: Legal process, including civil subpoena. So I'm wondering, does Stephanie Jones say to Blake Lively, hey, I have this stuff, but I want some, you CYA, like to be able to hand it all over? Is I guess my question is, is there a reason Stephanie Jones couldn't have just handed this all over without some sort of subpoENA?

0:13:45 Anne: Me think about that I suppose she could have done what she wanted to blake the moment that it was like okay the new york times is gonna publish this I'm sure she wanted some cya um

0:13:58 Thomas: Yeah. Imagine Stephanie Jones' lawyers would be like once you have them issue you a subpoena and then you're completely like Like Blake Lively has them through a subpena, there is no way Stephanie Jones is going to be liable for like if if there's, yeah, any disclosure stuff, you

0:14:08 Lydia: Disclosure of them. Yeah.

0:14:10 Anne: Right looking, there's a Variety article from December asking this exact question. And they're basically like, yeah, we can't figure it out either.

0:14:18 Thomas: And searched around it's obviously by no means exhaustive, but I looked in the dockets of everywhere that made sense that I could. So L .A., New York, like any places any like that to see, because there has to be some sort of legal proceeding that that valid subpoena is tied to. You mean, you could have a lawyer just like write one and say, like, here's a subpoENA. But like, I don't I don'T think it could be that, because I think that the New York Times. Times are going to have likely crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's because they have their legal all over it. Yeah.

0:14:44 Anne: They kind of know this. I know that California law has some pre -litigation discovery in certain circumstances. I don't know if that came into play here or

0:14:52 Thomas: Right. I thought of that, too. My understanding is if that were it, we would still see it on the docket, because if it's a subpoena that the judge has to sign, my understanding is from everything I'm seeing that has to be on the docket. So my only here.

0:15:01 Anne: Would think, yeah.

0:15:09 Lydia: Added after the fact kind of thing.

0:15:11 Thomas: And or we would see it by now, certainly like it would be somewhere we thought, oh, Oh, maybe the California civil rights department, uh, that didn't go anywhere like everything.

0:15:20 Lydia: Didn't investigate.

0:15:20 Thomas: They didn't know investigation. They just issued a right to sue letter. So it can't be from that. My only thinking is there's a little bit in Stephanie Jones's complaint where she mentions that there's an arbitration clause and her contract with, I think Wayfarer. Um, thinking that got me thinking, wait a minute, if somehow somebody was in an arbitration, that is a black box. And there could be a subpoena signed by a judge, but we wouldn't get to see anything about it.

0:15:46 Thomas: I can't think of who would be in what arbitration with whom that could generate that. That's my only thing.

0:15:46 Anne: That'd unless she privately had an arbitration with the and the folks who left about being like, uh -uh, you can't do that. You You can't take these clients and go. Like I know that's weird yeah

0:15:59 Thomas: Then someone, who would have subpoened her for the texts herself? You why I was, is there any way that, I BLAKE LIVELY COULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO ARBITRATION with jones works over this somehow or like some or if like I'm I don't know it just seems the whole thing seems weird like I don'T know why they would have gone to that length really

0:16:19 Anne: This I don't know if you saw this if you guys saw this vanity article um also says that jones is married to jason hodes who's a partner at the talent agency that reps lively and ryan reynolds huh it's so So tangled.

0:16:31 Lydia: Yeah, WME. Yeah. LA, everybody's connected, right? Like, yeah

0:16:36 Thomas: Are yeah you can'T really start doing the like uh pin yarn thing because like it's just one ball you just throw a ball of yarn on there and then like oh the New York Times is not going to say through a subpoena when they didn't see it. Like they will have seen it. I or I guess the New York Times, if Stephanie Jones told them I handed this over because of a subpoENA, that might be enough for them. Like, I guess.

0:16:45 Anne: What

0:16:58 Lydia: Just don't know, because Stephanie Jones's lawyer has also gone on record and saying that, you know, she's becoming the scapegoat. She just, Know, you produce things in accordance with a subpoena that was served on her. Like it would be crazy. All of these lawyers saying lying about it. It. Yeah.

0:17:10 Thomas: First thought was the New YorK Times will have to have seen the subpoONA to publish what they did. But if Stephanie jones and her lawyer were saying we we gave this because of a subpoena, that would probably be enough for the New York Times to, like, that's reason, you know, like, more

0:17:23 Anne: Justin baldoni's lawyers are correct the new york times just believed everything they were told and there's just total fucking rubes who got who got bamboozled

0:17:27 Thomas: On that later. We'll have, we'll get to that later, all so my, I don't know, I still, my theory is still some sort of arbitration, something, like can you just, like start start an arbitration? Because my thinking is this is a friendly thing. Like we know if we know that Jones wants to give her the stuff, but just wants coverage. Means that any you get into some legal thing, some arbitration and you just say, I want a subpoena that and the other side doesn't fight it like isn't the judge is pretty much going to sign off on it.

0:18:01 Anne: When you ask for something as long as there's no fight about giving it then it just happens

0:18:06 Thomas: Then is there anything that you can think of that would be wrong with Stephanie Jones and Blake Lively signing a contract that has an arbitration clause and then instantly going into arbitration just being like uh I allege that she was part of this campaign to mess with or something you know like does that cause any legal problems to do that well

0:18:22 Anne: I mean not necessarily I guess you have to know that eventually the other side's gonna dig that up and be like haha they concocted the sham arbitration but like it's so time it's it's such a it's a it it's so expensive and so far down the road before that happens that if your point is to win the pr war by the time that discussion happens two years later nobody cares no one's paying attention they've already made their decisions right

0:18:44 Thomas: It even be anything that's improper I mean if they they signed a contract let's if they found some way to trigger an arbitation clause somehow even if it's a little bit artificial but but it's it still like follows the letter of the law somehow, then that arbitration is a black box. I mean, could could somebody get access to what happened there through, if it's relevant to a different legal process or would that still be a black box? If IM suing someone and I'm like, Hey, I want to know what went on in the arbitration thing you had with someone else. I get a hold of that?

0:19:11 Lydia: Couldn't they get like in for there to have been an arbitration, there needs to be a signed contract and they could get a hold of that and be like, why did you sign a contract? Yeah.

0:19:21 Anne: It and it totally depends on the terms of the arbitration right like often when you're signing clickware or whatever and they have those arbitration clauses it's like this is confidential and no you can't join as a class they have all these rules right but contracts the magic of contracts is it's just whatever the parties agree within the outermost bounds of the law, right?

0:19:37 Thomas: But And unless somebody fights it too. Yeah. And if that's why I'm thinking, I feel crazy, but that's what I'm saying. It wouldn't have been that hard for them to just artificially get in a contract as long as they agree. Again, it's friendly. They're trying to get ahold of these texts and Jones is trying to just have an excuse. They'll be like, Hey, let's sign a contract. Oh, what do you know? I just heard Stephanie Jones that you were part of this campaign against me. So that violates our contract that we just signed or something thing and arbitration they agree then it's a matter of just hiring a judge an old retired judge to be the arbit we never remember arbiter arbitrator arbitrationist

0:20:00 Lydia: Arbitration. Yeah Yeah.

0:20:01 Anne: Now we're going to have an arbitration. Now even agree that it doesn't have to be... I prefer arbitratrix.

0:20:19 Thomas: So we said we weren't going to talk about that on air

0:20:22 Anne: I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. Can agree that the arbitrator is whoever you want, right like so it doesn't even have to be a retired judge you can be like yeah okay our our it's our mutual buddy cliff right oh

0:20:35 Thomas: And I feel like these we're again we're dealing with so So maybe we should have talked about this. Lively's legal team is a real legal team. I guess we have somewhere.

0:20:43 Lydia: Farr and Gallagher.

0:20:44 Thomas: Yeah, this is, Farr and Gallagher is the real deal. Another strong part of this theory in my mind was the speed at which you could do that, Whereas if you're trying to get a subpoena through an actual like court thingy in the California court system, like the scheduling of getting the judge to do all that crap would take forever. So I really think if there's a real subpoENA that's signed by a judge, my is it's got to be this. But I'm not a lawyer.

0:20:59 Anne: Get in line I I like this I think this is very possible um you know and from the jones's perspective right she could look at it and be like Like, okay, solves two problems for me. I'm pissed I found out this thing. If I cooperate with her, the settlement of our arbitration is that she promises not to sue me. I'm giving her this stuff, right? Like it's, it's win -win for both of them.

0:21:27 Lydia: And I can get back at Jen. Yeah.

0:21:29 Thomas: Exactly. That's why it's 100 % friendly. It makes sense from all perspectives. But it's just a question of where the hell that subpoena came from. And the fact that nobody's, like, out and out saying it makes me think it's something like this. But, okay, well, I'm glad that we have hired you to tell me I might not be wrong on this. Awesome. No, you tell me if I was wrong.

0:21:49 Anne: Thomas, I'm picturing you like the guy with the, with the sign on the street corner, you know, standing up there being like, where's the subpoena? Secret arbitration.

0:21:56 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, like everyone's, liked, moved on.

0:21:58 Lydia: Go down to the Capitol.

0:22:01 Thomas: Everyone's moved on to, like the trial and everything. I'm like, no, I want to know. Now, here's another, yeah, here's another, yes, subpoenas don't melt at that temperature. Here's another thing that I think a lot of people, again, are getting up hung on because this very quickly won't matter because in discovery they will get all this anyway, right? And there's no way that blake lively um not a mentat she only way she would have known these existed is stephanie jones initiating that or somebody initiating it not not like she could have just decided I know there's these texts and like gotten them you know like somebody

0:22:05 Lydia: Yeah that's that's absolutely gonna happen

0:22:08 Anne: Subpoena truthers. Mean,

0:22:36 Thomas: Had to have come to her

0:22:36 Anne: Again, unless you listen to Baldoni's lawyer, she might be a mentat.

0:22:40 Lydia: What does that word mean you guys dude no tom

0:22:40 Thomas: Is it from uh it's from I

0:22:46 Anne: Yeah, I was like, Dune? I don't is the pod people?

0:22:47 Thomas: Report that's men those are the men tats yeah yeah yeah those are those are the men tats I'm pretty sure unless I'm mixing it up maybe then it is from Dune and I'm mixing it up I don't know so now I think it's time to go to the end of the complaint where they put the causes of action and they put the things that they are directly alleging are those causes ofaction. And let's get into it. Us about the law, the legal, we're vegetarians, so we're

0:22:49 Lydia: Okay gotcha yeah yeah yeah yeah and legal meat, the legal meet. Meat everything else

0:23:21 Thomas: Not allowed. So, Ann, can you please eat this legal meat for us? There's no, she hung up. There's, no, she's not gonna do uh let's got 13 causes of action in this initial Blake Lively complaint. We sort of go through those and see what they are, what she might need to prove and talk about it.

0:23:23 Lydia: Is pr meat

0:23:28 Anne: Maybe

0:23:31 Lydia: Might

0:23:41 Anne: Let's work through and see what we we can can figure out from that right

0:23:44 Lydia: Right, so big one. One first cause of action, sexual harassment in violation of Title VII at federal level.

0:23:50 Thomas: The, so that's The Federal. So So that's, yeah, because we've got a mix of California and federal stuff here.

0:23:55 Anne: So this is your federal sort catch -all general cause of action for sexual harassment right the language here says it shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual and I would say that's what they're going to argue here the other discrimination with respect to his compensation terms conditions or privileges of employment because of such individuals race color religion sex or natural national origin so right the argument here I think would be that lively is arguing the conditions positions and uh of her uh in the movie were materially different because of her gender right

0:24:35 Thomas: Mixes me up because I when we're talking about sexual harassment and it talks about because of gender, I always think, well, it's okay to sexually harass someone of one gender but not the other. Or like, I don' t really understand how that language works.

0:24:45 Anne: That's what we all agree men like to be sexually harassed right that is not it

0:24:50 Thomas: I know that's not what it means, but it's what it always sounds like. So does that just mean, yeah,

0:24:54 Anne: Is what it sounds like it's more of a like this wouldn't have happened to me if I were a guy right you wouldn't have been talking to me about my sexy clothes

0:25:06 Thomas: So bisexuals get away with it. Can you argue? Yes, I would have sexually harassed any gender.

0:25:11 Anne: Maybe I wait for that case I would love that test to watch that test balloon go up

0:25:17 Thomas: I feel like this is one of those things where it's not really litigated in that literalist way that I just said, but this is weird language. Like I've never understood it, but anyway, and

0:25:25 Anne: It is weird language um so that's sort of your just your basic we're setting the groundwork we're gonna get into more specific stuff later right

0:25:32 Lydia: And then the second cause ofaction, we're still kind of in federal land, is retaliation in violation of title 7 right

0:25:38 Anne: And but reminder that I am not an employment attorney. I've done like one employment case. Is just sort of my, you understanding of, of laws, uh, they work, but I don't have like of application really. So retaliation, um, are what's called the whistleblower statutes in, in most, uh, right? This is the, um. Employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants, blah, blah. A bunch of other, you all inclusion stuff, um, he has opposed any practice made unlawful employment practice by the sub chapter, or because he is made a chain testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation proceeding or hearing under this sub chapter. Right. Basically no retaliation against people for saying, Hey, what you're doing is illegal, legal, or I'm going to participate or cooperate with anybody who is trying to figure out if what you're doing is illegal.

0:26:30 Thomas: So we did actually talk to a California, specifically a California employment lawyer, kind of on background. And one thing that occurred to me that I think is going to be interesting here is even if the sexual harassment claims fail, you can can still still be found liable, I suppose, for retaliating against someone for sexual harassment, claims that you don't think are valid. It's not as though you get to be Judge Judy and Executioner and say, I've decided these are invalid sexual harassment complaints, so I can retaliate against you. They could be completely not valid, and you still can't retaliate against the person reporting them. That's something that strikes me as a big problem for Baldoni. Again, I'm not the lawyer, but also a little weird to talk about this because we're not in a typical employment setting. I mean, the stuff you'd think about would be, you case. Woman reports a male boss being creepy. That boss passes her up for promotion or even fires or something like that. Like that's the that's going to be the like, hey, this is all really easy to establish something.

0:27:26 Anne: You can see how that can really cut both ways, right? Because if that happens, and then it's found that like, oh, there was no there there, that boss, if they're getting good legal counsel should be really wary of anything that happens in, you know, the next 12 to 18 months, right, in terms of not promoting that person or doing any layoffs or anything.

0:27:47 Thomas: Yeah. Which fair enough. The But other part of this is we're not in the classic workplace. I don't know if you have any insights as to that, but is there going to be any dispute over the employer -employee type relationship of this? Or is it pretty straightforward because of the way the contracts work and because of The Studio owning everything and Baldoni being in? Like, do you think we'll have any dispute there? Or, is not going to about that? It'll be more about the claims themselves? Themselves.

0:28:14 Anne: Don't have a ton of insight into this. But I will say that in looking at the California statutes, and we'll get to those, they do specifically because of the you know the industries that are based there specifically say that this kind of relationship does count as one under which you can bring employment claims so that would indicate to me that right like first and you'll see the way this is structured when we go through it but like first they're doing sexual harassment and retaliation under federal law and then they're going to go and do the same uh of the california code um and so you're sort of going like federal state federal state um I think that the fact that the california code covers this as a as an employment relationship means that you're at most okay so like you're going to spend a lot of time trying to strike out the federal part when the state like it's not I don't think it's

0:29:05 Thomas: It's not going to do a whole lot. Be better to focus on the, you allegations themselves, because if you're you Baldoni and you can say, and it's the burdens on him, I should, we should emphasize the burdens of Blake Lively to, you prove the sexual harassment to the jury, essentially. But if Baldoni can kind of dispute any instance, that will kind of count for both, I would assume, right? Whereas if you are fighting this sort of employer relationship, as you said, that unlikely that that works in the California setting, if not impossible. But that, that wouldn't really be a great use of time and resources, but we'll see with people who have a ton of time in resources.

0:29:37 Anne: Particularly here where if the game is not we're we're worried about actual damages and we're trying to shave down as much as we can blah blah right if the game here is truly at one of sort or that changes things if and if the game is one of um else like trying to vindicate your reputation um that speaks to a different set of you know sort of angles so so they may be playing different games here um but I don't think either of them lands on focusing on trying to say this wasn't a federally recognized employment situation yeah

0:29:58 Thomas: Good point. That's a good point. Yeah. Yeah, if we were talking about two corporations suing each other, then they're just trying to shave around the edges or something and be like, well, not, you know, but yeah, this is more than that. That's a great point. I'm very curious what qualifies as retaliation in this setting. Because again, we're not in the traditional employment setting. That's where I am unsure on Blake Lively's complaint, because I think it'll come down to the very specifics from my reading of what this PR campaign, what she can prove this PR campaign was. Because let hear your thoughts on this. I would think if Baldoni can say, hey, I was just ready to proactively say, I'm actually a great guy. And that kind of thing versus no, was a campaign to specifically take down Blake Lively. Feels like more retaliatory. That make sense to you? Or do you think there's way to think about it when it comes to retaliation in this weird setting right

0:31:02 Anne: In this weird setting it does seem like you amount of compensation is already set a lot of the other their stuff is set ahead of time, the conditions of work. So the retaliation would have to be in this zone of you sicked a PR team to make me look bad, or, you know, you, you attempted to tear down my reputation, which is, you Know, the basis of, basically of my marketability in our field of work?

0:31:25 Thomas: Forgot about the element of it And this is in the complaint, too, where she alleges that Baldoni and Heath would become all kind of shitty when they said no, like when they complained. That could be part of it, too. I mean, right. If they if created a work environment where Justin, again, as alleged, Baldoni says some comment about someone being sexy or whatever, and either Lively or someone else is like, hey, stop doing that. And then they get, pouty, you silent, shitty. That part of that? Is that or is that part of the sexual harassment part? You know, like, is that would you call that retaliation or what do you think?

0:32:00 Anne: I would I guess I would say it's kind of neither like yes as your lawyer I would would include that as part of creating sort of a generalized sense of like, there's a pattern here, painting a picture, but is it legally actionable for your boss to be shitty and pouty? Like, not really, until you can, right, you have to sort of then be like, okay, he evidenced unhappiness with this, and then there was this tangible retaliation, right? Right.

0:32:27 Thomas: Well, I was thinking just during the filming when it created that environment of people not feeling like they could speak up because they'll get like this. Again, Baldoni is the director. So like being afraid to say anything because he's going to be shitty to them while directing that feels like it's got to be something is it hmm

0:32:42 Anne: So, yeah, then you're going like that's more of like a hostile work environment kind of claim, which, again, maybe that falls sort of under this broad, this first thing sort of generally like sexual harassment, retaliation. But probably if I were like an experienced employment who will probably write to you and be like, Anne doesn't know what she's talking about. But like I I could probably tell you exactly like okay this is how that would be used but I would say it's part of the thing but without more you can't just right obviously nobody can just be like every time I bring up a complaint my boss is kind of an asshole about it none of us feel like we really have a environment where we can talk through problems like not enough

0:33:20 Thomas: Interesting no the complaint is talking about the pr campaign and it damaging uh career which seems like that almost seems like a separate thing to me like this it comes to retaliation for this reporting sexual harassment essentially which is what we're looking at here does it matter how much you can point to damages From that or is that that sounds like a separate thing almost like is it not or maybe it's not a separate Thing I they did a PR campaign trying to damage Blake Lively does it matter how Successful they are or is It about like if you try to retaliate in any way you're like say the jury judge Agrees that you were doing this and it was retaliatory and then the jury might agree to some sort of like punitive damages or something or does it matter like how effective it was because I could also see baldoni's side being like hey yeah we prepped this stuff but it didn't really do anything this was all organic and everyone just hates blake lively anyway

0:34:12 Anne: Yeah Yeah, this is an interesting question because I looked at this no and surprise here. California law is like a little bit more protective than federal law. The Californian, we'll to this under the 13th and 14th causes of action, I guess. But you would want to talk about the damage, obviously, because for all of these, the amount of damages that you can show affects the recovery amount. Amount. Some of these, like counts 13 and 14 that we'll get to, the is actual damages plus an amount to be determined by a jury for exemplary damages, a civil penalty of $25 ,000 for each, you know, violation, and attorney's fees as may be determined by the court. And as we know, in this case, the attorney's fees could be the real kicker right like looking at these firms right if you get any of like the senior partners the lower level attorneys are billing god I don't know 800 plus an hour um senior attorneys are probably more on the realm of 1500 to 2000 an hour it's gonna add up fast um because the ability to show that you were damaged is basically a required portion of your cause of action for almost all of these uh you're bringing the suit as an individual um important to sort of yeah show that this was effective as much as you can I

0:34:59 Lydia: My god yeah oh

0:35:00 Thomas: Gotcha

0:35:11 Lydia: Gosh yeah that's crazy are

0:35:37 Thomas: All where should we pick up in the uh causes here well

0:35:41 Lydia: We on third and fourth I guess we can third

0:35:43 Thomas: That's sort of duplicative I mean we kind of okay yeah I

0:35:43 Anne: Think so yeah right

0:35:44 Lydia: Fourth fifth together we got uh sexual harassment retaliation and violation of FIHA and then also retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code.

0:35:53 Anne: And as you suspected these functionally um with a little bit of extension the federal statutes um think the only addition here is that in addition to like other penalties under the the cause of action the california retaliation statute there's an additional additional of ten thousand dollars for each violation

0:36:14 Thomas: What constitutes of and that's

0:36:15 Lydia: I was going to say, how would you distinguish that?

0:36:16 Thomas: The retaliation each violation of retaliation or is that sexual okay right

0:36:19 Anne: Right but if you could make I guess if you can again I would love to have somebody who's litigated this exact statute chime in but I think if you Could document like okay uh was not picked to go on this thing and then of two months later I was this this other thing and and you could document a list of 25 things that were pretty clearly retaliatory, you might get ding, ding, dang, dang a number of those racking up. Other thing to note on that fifth cause of action is that there is a shifting burden of proof.

0:36:51 Anne: So like once, um, plaintiff demonstrate by a, you know, it's a preponderance of the evidence standard, that something that violates this section was a contributing factor. It doesn't have to be like the sole factor, but a contributing factor in that you're action claiming as retaliation. Then shifts the burden of proof to the employer to demonstrate at a clear and convincing evidence standard that action they took would have occurred for legitimate independent reasons even if the even if the the underlying stuff had not happened right again if this is like the you fired me it was because you know I spoke up about sexual harassment and then they have to go no you very clearly sucked at your job and we already had plans to fire you that's an interesting one yeah

0:37:20 Lydia: Regardless. Interesting.

0:37:38 Thomas: Bringing that into the pr context is weird it's really like interesting to think about it this way because there is sense in what's going on and I think it's a really interesting thing to think in which baldoni could say like well in order to repair my image I have to like somehow like discredit flake lively but I don't think that works plus also there's it's not just baldoni It's also Wayfarer. It's also, you know, like the other entities as well, where I don't think it'll be as clear cut that don'T think it'll BE as easy for Baldoni to try to claim some like positive PR thing. Like, no, I was just trying to, make you my image better rather than taking Blake Lively out because like you brainstorming might you like might be able to say like, well, we got got to do that for Baldini, but do you have to do that for Wayfarers Studios? Like, does that make sense? I don't know yeah

0:38:16 Anne: I don't know it'd be very interesting to see them fight this one out and how they argue about it because yeah it's like a tough argument to make um

0:38:20 Thomas: Interesting

0:38:23 Lydia: Right, then we get into the sixth cause of action, which is failure to investigate, prevent, and or remedy harassment in violation FIH. And then this is against the It Ends With Us movie, LLC, and Wayfair.

0:38:34 Anne: Is is an interesting one that california has but the federal government does not have um This is the cause of action for the failure to take, quote, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring, a responsibility to create sort a compliant workplace within reasonable means, and you didn't do that.

0:38:48 Thomas: Does that require demonstrating that there was sexual harassment would it be like hey we complained and nobody did anything like do you have to first like prove sexual harassment you know what I mean like just

0:39:07 Anne: I would consider this to be more of a tag -on cause ofaction. Like I don't think it's really you're gonna have a hard time I think probably advancing this as yeah as a standalone like hey I work for this place and they didn't have me take any sexual harassment training it's crazy you yeah that's a tag on I think right

0:39:14 Thomas: Proving this like yeah yeah oh

0:39:26 Lydia: Then we get into the seventh cause of action which is against melissa nathan uh agency group and jennifer abel in the original complaint and this is aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation violation of fija so kind of separating them out from the companies which had a duty to investigate prevent right right exactly and then these were accomplices um violating fija yeah

0:39:44 Thomas: As an employer but yeah yeah yeah

0:39:48 Anne: So notice that right back up to the fourth cause of action which is retaliation under under FIHA, California state statute, that is just against the movie and Wayfarer. Of the portions of this law, and I would be interested to know, I probably never will, from the attorneys why they didn't include the in this as well, because one of the portions is it's also illegal for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any acts forbidden under this part, so then down here in the seventh cause of action, that's exactly what they're saying. They were acting on behalf of the employer to this retaliation.

0:40:30 Thomas: Well and I need to amend everything I just said because yeah as an individual isn't in those in the retaliation I didn't even realize that yeah

0:40:37 Anne: So it's interesting how chose to do the carving up here. And And I'm sure it's based on, know, things you we don't know yet.

0:40:43 Thomas: It's like I think what threw me off is they talk about Baldoni and Heath as individuals in like how they're applying this and in what they're pointing to but then I think they're they're They're only naming or And it's different depending on the cause of action. But like for the retaliation ones, they're only naming the movie in the studio for retaliation. I imagine they can point to Baldoni and Heath as agents of the studio.

0:41:05 Anne: Certainly.

0:41:05 Thomas: So it's like, OK, so I guess that makes sense because as an individual, he you wasn't an employer. Now that I think about it, it wasn't as I mean, I guess you could say he was the boss. But like, yeah, I guess ultimately the workplace is still, yeah. Yeah. The workplace is still responsible.

0:41:14 Anne: He wasn't working in his individual capacity. Baldoni and Heath the only owners of this Wayfarer production company? I was going to say the billionaire backer. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, also, yeah? So that's where the money is too, right? Like it's, it's in this company and yeah, yeah, okay.

0:41:22 Lydia: Um, Steve Sarowitz yeah

0:41:23 Thomas: The billionaire as well.

0:41:32 Lydia: That's a good point yeah

0:41:35 Thomas: I'm taking a look at where the individuals are even because Baldoni is a defendant. So like, he's got to be in there somewhere. It looks like for one of the sexual harassment ones and for like a negligence ones.

0:41:45 Anne: We get down to the 10th and beyond, we see them individually.

0:41:47 Lydia: Three

0:41:48 Thomas: I also think in And count the third cause ofaction, he's, he, he Baldoni and Heath are named and that's the FIHA sexual harassment one.

0:41:51 Lydia: Sexual harassment Mm hmm.

0:41:55 Thomas: Okay. To know. That's That's why we talked to lawyers.

0:42:04 Lydia: Next couple, eighth and ninth causes of action are regarding breach of contract. So the eighth cause of action is specific to the actor loan out agreement. And the ninth is specific to the contract writer agreement.

0:42:17 Anne: Probably like of these, you of the complaint, whatever, the most boring parts for me. I'm a contracts nerd. I's like, hell yeah, this is my zone. Um right are just looking to meet those basic breach of contract elements right existence of a valid contract I don't think anyone's disputing that um you or excuse for non -performance uh the terms of that contract the breach uh the defendant of their terms of the contract and the resulting damages it's pretty straightforward it's It's pretty simple.

0:42:47 Thomas: And I think it's, extra it's bad because again, we've been going through the whole thing at length, which we spared you from, but one we talked to the employment lawyer on background, one of of the worst parts of this whole thing for Baldoni is obviously that, uh, Jamie Heath was the one who signed it. They signed a document agreeing, okay, we'll stop doing this. Oh, well in their words, they say, no, we were just agreeing. We wouldn't do these things. It wasn't because anyone ever did them. We just, you know, we're signing a statement.

0:43:10 Anne: I read some of that document and I was shocked. I was like, you can't have had a lawyer look at this for you and approve it because

0:43:19 Thomas: That's what the other attorney said that we talked to.

0:43:21 Anne: Never.

0:43:21 Lydia: She explicitly said, I would have never had my client sign this.

0:43:25 Anne: Yeah, because it specifically says the we agree we will stop doing these things like no more discussing the intimate details of your sex life, including the positions you prefer or something like. Like, and it was just like, there's

0:43:39 Thomas: That's going to be such a bad document in this case.

0:43:41 Anne: Is such a bad diet. There's no way around. Why would you ever agree to sign that if you were like, no, I'm just humoring you. This didn't actually happen or,

0:43:49 Thomas: And agreeing we won't retaliate, like specifically related to these things. It's not just like, oh, the contract in general had a, you know, don't do a massive PR campaign to take me down clause, which it might anyway, but like they specifically agreed that they wouldn't retaliation over these things, so like that, breach of contract, to your point, that sounds like a really tough one to get out of here. Now, what kind of damages would we be looking at in if she was able to prevail on these, is it based on the contract?

0:43:52 Lydia: We won't retaliate we

0:44:17 Anne: Probably if probably part of why they have the, you infliction of emotional distress claims down below because that's probably your damages under the like hey I asked you to stop doing this harassing behavior we even documented it and then you kept doing it that's the basis for the outrageous and intentional reckless conduct we'll talk about with you know intentional and negligent infliction up emotional distress that's your damages also well

0:44:44 Thomas: But the breach of contract, we don't know, like, Is it specific to what they wrote into the contract as to what the penalties would be for that?

0:44:51 Anne: Yeah I mean I don't know I don'T have we seen have we seeing the whole thing

0:44:53 Lydia: Haven't seen no

0:44:54 Thomas: We haven't seen it, but I'm just talking in general like that. It's not, there's not some like, yeah,

0:44:55 Anne: So I don't think yeah they probably don't have a like a liquidated damages provision in there or whatever um basically a love liquidated damage provisions it's like a hey so every time time you violate this we agree that's just five thousand dollars you have to pay me good yes cool um fights no fuss no muss you just owe five thousand great this case right gonna say okay we came have to this agreement experiment uh broke it and the resulting damages are you I had to visit these doctors and I had these probably um would get into big money if it were like I was so upset that I actually took the next six months off from acting and in that time I was offered film roles worth these many millions of dollars that I had had to turn down you the opportunity cost as of my damages now hell

0:45:39 Thomas: Which I think there's some of that, that she alleges and yeah, it makes sense. All right. So 10 and 11, intentional infliction. IIED and negligence infliction of emotional distress.

0:45:50 Anne: Yeah everybody loves them yeah so the different the differences in these right both um there has to have been like outrageous conduct that caused you know severe emotional distress um two three so outrageous conduct severe emotional distress, the conduct was the cause of the distress. The difference is one is intentional, right? You knew what you were doing, or at least it was beyond the bounds of reasonable action. So it was reckless. Where your intentional infliction of emotional distress, whereas with negligent infliction, of emotional stress, it's like you owed a duty of care. And didn't follow sort of that, right.

0:46:24 Lydia: And that makes sense in terms of uh that specifically being against wayfarer baldonian heath right

0:46:30 Anne: Again, because like they at at some point you could argue that the was negligent up to the point of the that they came to about hey stop doing these things and then after that point it would have been intentional right

0:46:44 Thomas: So the 10th has Wayfarer, It Ends With Us movie, Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Nathan, Tagg, and Abel. It's interesting Sarowitz is in there for IIED.

0:46:54 Lydia: I the mean things that we don't know at this point in time

0:46:57 Thomas: That's true. And I keep pointing that out too, is we have, yes, Blake Lively has these texts from like one source, which is Jen Abel. She's going to be getting her hands on all kinds of texts between, you Sarowitz and Baldoni and Heath. Like I can only imagine what's in those. Mm

0:47:12 Anne: Right and so again this is a thing where if you even think that maybe sarowitz had something to do with the directing of this pr team to smear you you just put this cause of action against all of them and then maybe later amend it out okay we were we're dropping it as to this defendant so

0:47:31 Lydia: Right. And then we get into 12th cause of action, false light invasion of privacy.

0:47:37 Thomas: What

0:47:37 Anne: This was an interesting one right this is references article one of the california constitution um is just very vague right it's basically like you have the right to you your life to the best of your ability um it has been interpreted as a pretty strong privacy protection for citizens of california um for instance uh there was a case that ruled that students have a reasonable expectation of privacy that can't be waived by simply being uh in one context but but not another. So Um, you couldn't be like out at school and then have the school be take like, you on a trip or something and be like here is our gay student. Run into this when I have litigated in California around, um. That you can bring up you even demand and discovery people will say that that's a violation of article one this privacy uh so um it's interpreted pretty broadly um it also applies to public disclosure of private facts and I think that's what's being used here.

0:48:40 Thomas: Would those be though I'm not I'm looking through the how they wrote it up and it just says that the publicity and false and misleading disclosures essentially I'm Not sure what private things um what statements or what things do you Think they're talking about

0:48:52 Anne: I don't know that this is really a claim. I mean, we're dealing with people who are very obviously public figures. And so a defamation claim is kind of hard, right? Because it's like, yeah, this stuff is of public concern and the standard is pretty high to say you can't talk about this. I'm sure this was just like put in there, but I don't think this is their strongest claim the false light is is it's a privacy claim similar to death but it focuses on instead on the you truth or falsity of the statements it focuses upon your sort right to be viewed for yourself and not falsely portrayed which is I think the thing here right she's going hey they're smearing me you a public figure who has the right to viewed as a whole person and not have these sort true or not, these slanted things being published me to outweigh the other stuff that's in public realm. So the the standards for like this sort of general background is like the defendant disclosed private facts disclosure was not legitimate public concern disclosure was highly offensive to a reasonable person and the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth so again very similar to like a defamation slander type of thing um

0:49:25 Thomas: Interesting Interesting. I say there's an allegation in here. Yeah. So this This might make sense looking at from the perspective that you're not going to get defamation most like in all likelihood, because, again, public figures standards very high. But there were those texts talking about and did did she name Sarowitz in this one?

0:50:22 Anne: Yes

0:50:22 Lydia: Yes, she did. False light invasion of privacy, yes. Wayfair, Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz. It's, oh, know what? Maybe she added him.

0:50:27 Thomas: I don't have that. Maybe

0:50:30 Lydia: She added, I think maybe she added him to the thing. Did I miss that?

0:50:30 Thomas: She added. Added. So in the so in now, yeah, because it's not the 12th cause he's not in there for this one.

0:50:37 Lydia: And I'm looking at what I copied from the amended.

0:50:39 Thomas: ,so in the amended, that makes sense. So what I was going to say was there was that little bit we got where Sarowitz was like, oh, just make up the fact that like Reynolds, for example, wanted to fire the feminist writer because they weren't doing their job. You know, it's something stupid like that. And I think, I talking about bad documents, I, my impression was we'll see once we see more information, but it came across like, Hey, let's invent a fake thing and say they did it, which doesn't seem great.

0:51:05 Anne: That's yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing that I would think your lawyers would look at and go, OK, cool. This is how I would attack that with this kind of claim, not a defamation claim, because it is so hard for someone in your position.

0:51:17 Lydia: Interesting. And then, yeah. And then we wrap up the original complaint with the 13th cause of action, which is sexual harassment in violation of California civil code against Baldoni and Heath.

0:51:26 Thomas: What's the difference there? That's just like not in an employment context.

0:51:29 Anne: So this is the one that specifically is a Hollywood inclusion. Conclusion.

0:51:35 Lydia: Interesting.

0:51:35 Anne: Is a person is liable and a cause of action for sexual harassment under the section where the plaintiff proves all the following elements. One, there is a business service or professional relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant or the defendant holds himself or herself out as being able to help the plaintiff establish a business surface. Such relationship may exist. And then they start giving lists and they're like lawyers, doctors, blah, blah. Blah sort of the professionals uh in that list is director or producer so

0:52:03 Thomas: Right. Makes sense.

0:52:05 Anne: So obviously you Baldoni Heath the relationship here um also a catch-all right after that that said a relationship is that is substantially similar to any of those above so right just because we haven't used the exact words uh it's something like that this This counts. That's item one for this was definitely a, you that constituted a one where sexual harassment could occur under as recognized under California law. Even they were successful on defeating the quote -unquote employment claims all way at the top from federal and state statutes we discussed at the Top of this complaint list, there's still this. You can't get rid of this. Yes. Two in this list that you have to prove that made defendant sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests, demands for sexual compliance or engaged in other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile nature based on gender that was unwelcome and pervasive or severe. Beer so that's item two and then uh three plaintiff has suffered or will suffer economic loss or disadvantage or personal injury including but unlimited to emotional distress in violation of a statutory or constitutional right see above where we have you the invasion of privacy as a result of the conduct described in paragraph too. I think, again, this is just a good all bases. Absolutely. Is the one where you get your actual damages, plus any sort of punitives that a jury decides, plus the civil penalty, plus potentially attorney's fees.

0:53:36 Thomas: Yeah, I um, guess in, in closing on this, um. Is the kind of thing where you write a complaint and you, you include pretty much as much as you can. I mean, there's certain risks to that. If you're talking about some context, like if you're, if there's some risk that it could be, you could be, uh, you know, liable for attorney's fees if you'RE just, you KNOW, alleging something completely nonsense or, or whatever. But for the most part, you'RE, you're kind of throwing spaghetti at the wall somewhat, right?

0:53:58 Anne: You're walking this delicate line of, of course, you can always amend your complaint to expand it, right? So it's not the end of the world if something later you're like, oh, shoot. And totally normal. But what you want to do at the outset is kind spaghetti against the wall, all, but do it in a way that is at least plausibly targeted, again, so that you don't lose credibility with the judge and seem sloppy.

0:54:22 Thomas: Then what's the, like, so we'RE in federal court here. Here you get like what one amended complaint first and then do another process after discovery because I could just imagine if you go through discovery for something like this I can imagine there's got to be plenty of times where it's like oh shit there's way more here or another party we don't even know about like do you then get to amend again or something how does that work

0:54:43 Anne: Amended complaint, no problem. Definitely can amend your complaint based on new information that you find in discovery, judges at the outset usually set a schedule for the entire process. And so they have set a time frame for when discovery has to end when all of your motions to To Dismiss have to be brought, they've set the whole thing out because they're under pressure to keep cases moving. And in fact, In this case, the judge, I believe, has already threatened that if they don't stop trying to litigate this in the press, he will move up the trial date.

0:55:18 Thomas: Yeah well they had a whole hearing yeah that we'll have to talk about at some point but yeah

0:55:22 Anne: So you always ask the court, hey, I have a really good reason. I know maybe I'm out of freebies, but please let me amend this complaint. And generally, they will do so. So I have been involved in a case, believe I it was here in Michigan, that they amended their complaint like discovery had closed and the other team had no chance to even try to get any discovery that would have allowed them to oppose the claim, new claims in the complaint.

0:55:29 Thomas: Interesting

0:55:50 Anne: That's within the judge's discretion. Progression. So I'm very interested to learn more and see how this all shakes out.

0:55:49 Thomas: Interesting huh wow this case is important because I really think we need to do something about the misinformation environment we're in. And I don't like that there's this secretive infrastructure for someone to be like, let's wage a shadow PR campaign against a person, regardless of whether they feel they're right or wrong it's one thing there's it strikes me that this is also a battle of like old school I guess I'll say or like conventional pr which sucks in a lot of ways like we don't know but I don't like any pr they they're all fake they're trying to get whatever but like there's a certain amount to which that's priced in like each celebrity is going to have their pr team they're going to be trying to spin whatever whatever way that's like kind then Then there's this newer, more sinister level at which it's like manipulating posts online, Votes on Reddit and stuff like upvotes, like that kind of thing. I do not think that that's a good thing. And I, for one, any if of those allegations are true, I would really like for there to be a big demonstration of that costing some people some money so that we see less of that personally.

0:56:44 Anne: I was using bots probably and yeah no I agree I think that's all just leads to like broader sense of not being able to believe the world in which you live right it's like a celebrity version of the like oh we all just have to remember that any image you see might be ai and not real um more and I don't like that at all but I'll be interested to see how the how facts shake out here my

0:57:19 Thomas: Right And well, thank you so much as always for coming on, giving us a dose of the law to go with all of our text image stuff, messages and all that crap we're going through until in your legal closet and we're going to file you back away in the law portal that you came from and then we'll, we'll be in touch soon. So much as always.

0:57:26 Lydia: Back

0:57:29 Anne: A joy until Powering down. All right.

0:57:35 Lydia: Man service

0:57:43 Anne: For having me, guys. Bye.