B (3:39)

Thanks for having me, Matt. It's great to be here.

A (3:41)

All right, so we had Brian Friedman, lawyer for the other side, on probably about a year ago now to kind of lay out the case. Now we have the big settlement. You are able to come on the show and talk about it. I have many, many questions about, about this case because these statements that went out, you guys claim victory. You called it a resounding victory for your client. Brian called it a, quote, total victory for Justin Baldoni. So one of you guys has to be wrong here. Give me your 30 second pitch for why your client won here, because I understand no money changed hands during the settlement. So confirm that's accurate and then tell us why your client won.

B (4:26)

So let me tell you why our client is happy, ecstatic with this settlement. The reason that our client is happy with this settlement is because it gives her the power and the opportunity to pursue what we believe is her most potent and powerful claim in a way that is efficient, in a way that is final, in a way that the defendants have no appeal rights over, and in a way that cuts off most of the noise that would be surrounding this case and lets us get straight to the core issue of how the defendants retaliated against her. Specifically the retaliatory lawsuit that they filed that called her a liar, that branded her a liar.

A (5:06)

This was for when. When she asserted the sexual harassment claim, he filed a defamation case against her, saying that she was lying. And there is a specific law in California that says if you do that, it's designed to protect victims and people that may be afraid of coming forward. There's a law that says if you do that and there is a favorable outcome that you could be Liable for pretty significant damages. That's what you're suing under, or that's what you're allowed to continue under.

B (5:35)

Not could be, shall be, shall be liable. And that's. That's an important distinction. It's not one of these statutes where there's discretion for awarding the damages once the conditions are met. And we believe the conditions have essentially already been met. And what's important about that, Matt, is that they filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against our client, against Ryan Reynolds, against Leslie Sloan. They claimed that all of this was a lie. It was all made up, and they were going to prove it in court. They lost that. Their attorneys got sanctioned for bringing it, and now they're going to be held liable for compensatory damages, tripled punitive damages, and attorney's fees. When we establish the elements of this

A (6:15)

47.1, you hope you are essentially settling for the opportunity to litigate further. And that's not a guarantee. I mean, you seem pretty confident, but others have expressed some skepticism about whether you guys are going to ultimately be victorious here.

B (6:31)

Well, all litigation is a. Is a bet. This is just a really.

A (6:34)

Of course. But you guys gave up a lot in settling.

B (6:37)

This is a really, really good bet. And they gave up everything. So they gave up the right to appeal that 400 million dol defamation judgment. Those claims are now gone, and they got nothing in return for it, and they have waived their right to appeal. And you know this because of your background. Appeal is one of the ways that defendants often frustrate plaintiff's ability to collect on a judgment. It can drag out for years. You could be fighting a fight on and on and on. You could have difficulties collecting the judgment. And so instead of doing that, we now have a direct shot with no appellate rights. And this particular action involves all of the defendants. It doesn't just involve the three entities that were at issue in the Lively versus Wayfair litigation. It involves all of the individuals and all of the entities. And so there won't be any issue here in satisfying a judgment, and there won't be appeals to drag this out and delay it. It means speed. It means efficiency. It means that this is over much, much sooner than it would have been otherwise.

A (7:35)

So what are you hoping to get here? Give me a best case scenario, dollar amount that you could collect and from who.

B (7:42)

So I want to step back from that, because this lawsuit has never been principally about money for our client. It has been about accountability. It has been about shining a light on this underground smear. Machine that retaliated against her for raising claims of sexual harassment and retaliation and has harmed so many other people. And what you've seen since Blake stood up and brought this lawsuit is evidence coming out in our case that has led to information being used now in other litigations. The Nicholas case, the Amanda Ghost case, this underground smear machine has been exposed, and people are now on notice that if they see. You know, if you see a mattbellonysucks.net website pop up, you're gonna maybe have an idea of who might have put that website up.

A (8:31)

Oh, there are many, many candidates, including some of the litigants. But, but. But. But you know what? She spent tens of millions of dollars on this case. I mean, at one point, there are, what, five law firms working on her behalf in this case. And her brand business is sort of in shambles. She is now arguably made herself and exposed herself in a way that she wouldn't have had to deal with had she not brought this case. There has been an absolute Streisand effect in this case. You know, I know you're going to say it's all worth it, but you got to understand, when reasonable people look at this case and say, why? Why did she initiate this case?

B (9:18)

So I don't actually think the data supports what you're saying. And what I mean by that is what the data supports, and this came out in expert reports in our case, is that the reaction to Ms. Lively bringing this lawsuit was positive. When that sentiment changed and we changed.

A (9:34)

Amongst who? Amongst her agents at William Morris?

B (9:37)

No, overwhelmingly in the public. And what that sentiment shows. And this is measurable. You know this. There's ways you can measure online sentiment. What it shows is that that began to shift after the Wayfarer parties filed their defamation lawsuit and they went out on a press tour branding her as a liar in the press. That's the importance of the 47:1. That's why we have focused on that claim. That's why we have focused on holding them accountable for bringing a frivolous, retaliatory, sham lawsuit. It was an improper lawsuit under California law. They'd been sanctioned for Rule 11 for bringing it, and it had this effect. That effect was what the California legislature sought to prohibit when it enacted section 47. And so this is important not just for Ms. Lively. This is important for everyone else. That law was intended to benefit because what people are supposed to be able to do, Matt, they're supposed to be able to file a complaint about what happens to them in the workplace, with the administrative agency responsible for that without being afraid that some loudmouth lawyer is going to go out and file a nine figure defamation lawsuit against them. That's why the California legislature passed the law. That's why we focused on the claim. That's why we're going to put our energies into enforcing it, holding them accountable and collecting damages as a result of it.

A (10:52)

Okay, but you do have to at least think about whether there is some other strategy to rebuild a reputation than extended public litigation that costs tens of millions of dollars. That's what I think. People look at this case from a business perspective and think this was a circus. And you probably did not anticipate the level to which Baldoni and his legal team would make this a circus. But it became one. And this trial, had it happened, would have been an even bigger circus. So, like the lesson from this case, isn't it that you have to think really, really hard before you initiate a case like this. If you are a major celebrity and you have brand businesses and a film career and you want that to be what people know about you, not the back and forth bombs being dropped, I

B (11:57)

think you gotta wait and see what we accomplish in our 47.1 before you write the final chapter of that book. But what I would say, Matt, is I don't think it's an option to sit back and let people assassinate your character and reputation with untraceable digital smear campaigns. I think when you discover that somebody has done that to you, that bringing that to light and holding those people accountable is important. And I think that what Ms. Lively's lawsuit has shown is that there actually is a way to do that. You can shine a light on it and that can have an effect on others. And like I said, if you have

A (12:29)

unlimited resources, for sure.

B (12:31)

Well, one of the reasons that, you know, Ms. Lively felt so compelled to stand up is that if they could do this to her, they could do it to anyone. And, and there are lots of people that don't have the resources to stand up and fight back. And that's one of the points of section 47 on this law. In California, the legislature recognized that most people don't have the ability to fight back against a large defamation lawsuit when it's brought by a large employer or somebody with a lot of money. And so the law is supposed to operate to protect against retaliatory lawsuits like this. Blake thought it was important to stand up for those principles. She still thinks it's important to stand up for those principles. That's why we've focused on this element of the claim. That's why we have moved to pursue this element of the claim. It is more powerful. It is faster. Like I said before, we think we've already met almost all of the tests. In it. She just has to prove that she is a prevailing defendant in a defamation action. She's proved that. She has to prove that she made her complaints about sexual harassment or retaliation without malice. We think we've already proved that. We think they've essentially admitted to that in the statement that they've made when they've said her claims deserve to be heard. We think other parts of evidence in the case also bear that out. So there's not much left to do do in this particular aspect of litigation, except for quantify the damage that's been done to her. And I think that when that process unfolds, you're going to see a powerful tool of accountability that will shine a light for others that face this kind of problem.

A (14:03)

So procedurally, how does this continue? Are we looking at motions filed within the month? Like, can we find. Can we get a resolution by the end of the year?

B (14:12)

It's unknown. So we had a fully briefed motion. Both the. Both sides sent in papers on this. I think it was complete in September. And we, in filing the settlement papers earlier this week, asked the court for leave to essentially submit a brief that lays out a process for this moving forward. So it may take a little bit of time for the court to sort out how it wants to handle the issue, how it wants to hear evidence the defendants may want anyway. There's certain posturing that may occur by the parties as to how procedurally this should work going forward, but certainly the court's gonna take some more evidence on the quantification of damages. There may need to be a hearing. There may need to be some kind of a trial on this.

A (15:02)

Oh, no. Another trial.

B (15:04)

Well, that is certainly a possibility in the 47 one, which is this is one of the problems with what happened earlier this week in jumping the gun and going out, you know, before the settlement had even gone onto the court's docket, and going out and starting to talk about, you know, spinning the settlement in the misleading way.

A (15:23)

Well, you knew that was going to happen. Come on. I mean, the funniest part to me was that the settlement was announced the day of the Met Gala just in time for Blake to attend the Met Gala. Was that strategic?

B (15:34)

I mean, both parties. The date of the Met Gala is public information, and both parties participated in the execution of the settlement Agreement. So, I mean.

A (15:43)

Yeah, well. But you guys have an interest in

B (15:45)

her defendants that question.

A (15:47)

No, I would ask Blake that question because she's the one trying to build back her brand business, and the Met Gala is the most important fashion moment of the year.

B (15:56)

Yeah, she's focused on living her life and moving forward. She's not focused on the ins and outs of, you know, lawyer battles and statements in the press and things like that. I mean, she is happy about this settlement because it allows her to move forward, because it allows her to focus on this particular aspect of the case, which is so very important to her and to others. She's not getting lost in these back and forth details of lawyers trying to posture who won or lost the settlement. She's very happy with it. We don't begrudge the other side if they're happy with it also. But what I would want you to do is to really focus not on what the lawyers are saying. Focus on what the parties said. Focus on the party's joint statement. The parties released a joint statement. The parties said that Ms. Lively's claims deserve to be heard.

A (16:47)

I'm sure that was heavily neglected, negotiated. What does that even mean? I mean, it's so. It's so like, both sides could use that to bolster their claim. You guys say it's an admission that something was wrong. They're saying it deserves to be heard, but it was ultimately never proven in court.

B (17:03)

But, Matt, what deserves to be heard means. What it can't mean is that they were fabricated. Right. It can't mean that they were holy lies. You can't simultaneously say this deserves to be heard and it's completely fabricated and damaging to people's reputations. It means that they are admitting whether they like it or not or whether. Whether their lawyer likes it or not. They're admitting that her concerns, her claims were made in good faith, that they were genuine, that they were reasonable. Even if they disagreed with them, even if they thought they didn't rise to certain legal levels. They're saying they weren't fabricated. And that's. That's a very important statement. But more importantly, the parties, in issuing this joint statement, this is very different from the, you know, from the garbage that you're hearing from. From one lawyer in particular.

A (17:44)

You can say Brian Friedman. That's okay.

B (17:46)

The parties asked everyone to move forward constructively. Respectful environment, online parties. Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath Wayfair, Blake Lively all asked for that. And that's what we're focused on. That's what Ms. Lively is focused on

A (18:00)

who is the client for you? How much was Ryan Reynolds involved in the strategy of this case?

B (18:07)

This is. This is Blake Lively's case. This is Blake Lively's litigation. She is the plaintiff. Obviously, Ryan Reynolds got sued. I mean, they came in and sued him along with Blake Lively for $400 million. So there was a time when he was a party in the case that was, in our view, always frivolous. It was always designed to retaliate against Ms. Lively by bringing her husband into the litigation. We think in an unwarranted fashion. Their lawyers were sanctioned for some of the claims that they brought against miss Lively and reprimanded for bringing those claims. That's. Most of your audience may not know this, but that's not a typical thing that happens in federal litigation. So he was involved because they decided to file a improper retaliatory lawsuit to drag Blake Lively's husband into the fight because they thought that would suit them for PR purposes. That's why we filed the 47 one. That's why we filed motions for sanctions, because this is not what you're supposed to do. It's one thing to defend yourself. It's another thing to go out and file improper retaliatory litigation that's designed to harass, that's designed to intimidate, that's designed to send a message to others that you better not make claims like this against me or else this is what will happen to you.

A (19:26)

Who is your sense of the decision makers on the Baldoni side? Because obviously, he's got this very wealthy benefactor in Steve Sarawitz, who he's involved in a religion with and is a big backer in Wayfarer. Did you get the sense that this was kind of bigger than him, that there were others that were backing this litigation on the other side?

B (19:51)

I don't know that others were backing it. I mean, I know that Wayfair Studios was the, you know, defendant. That was the connective tissue between all these different individuals. Wayfair Studios owned the movie, put out the movie, profited immensely from this wildly successful movie. Wayfair Studios reaped the profits from that. So that's the connective tissue between all of these individuals. I have no. Unfortunately, I have no insights into who calls the shots over there. I mean, in the case, we heard testimony that Mr. Sarewitz was the money behind the operation and that Mr. Baldoni was the fame. But beyond that, I'm not sure I have anything for you.

A (20:33)

And who gets sequel rights in this settlement?

B (20:37)

That's. That's not an issue in this settlement.

A (20:39)

Not at all.

B (20:40)

No, that's not.

A (20:41)

That was never an issue.

B (20:42)

That's never an issue. That's a figment of people's imaginations.

A (20:47)

Okay, why were there five law firms working for Blake Lively? It was you guys. It was Sussman, Godfrey, Boyce, Schiller was involved manat a couple other firms, I believe. Like, why did it take so many attorneys on this side? And is that $30 million on each side figure accurate that's been floating out there?

B (21:07)

I don't even know where that figure comes from. I mean, you've, you've seen, I think

A (21:12)

it was like a, like gossip Page Six thing.

B (21:14)

But I don't even pretend to know what, you know, other law firms bills might look like. Look, you've seen the docket in this case. You've seen the number of filings that have had to have been made in this case. You have seen how much it has taken to get to this stage of the litigation. The number of filings, the number of motions. The other side had multiple law firms involved in this case representing either them or their indemnified witnesses. I mean, there's at least five law firms on their side of the case when you count the lawyers that represent the Wayfarer parties, that represented Jed Wallace and Street Relations, the lawyers that represented Katie Case and Brianna Koslow. So some of the third party witnesses,

A (21:59)

Steph Jones has Quinn Emanuel, one of the, like most expensive law firms in la.

B (22:04)

There are many, many law firms involved on both sides of this case. And there are many law firms that are involved in some of the other cases that have been brought. The Amanda Ghost litigation that you mentioned, Stephanie Jones. So there's, there is a lot of litigation, not just that has happened in our case, but in other cases related to this kind of group of people and entities that engage in this kind of digital and public relations work.

A (22:32)

What a mess.

B (22:33)

To uncover that requires a lot of work. It requires a lot of discovery. It requires filing motions to compel. We fought. We had to file more motions to compel in this case than I can count. Just to be able to recover documents and text messages that they refused to produce to us. We won. I think most of those. I don't have the account in front of me, but that takes time. It takes energy.

A (22:54)

But a lot of motions, a lot of your motions were discussed, dismissed. And I thought maybe that was why some of the firms were brought in, because there was some frustration over the length, the circus nature of this, the kind of way certain Motions were heard and decided. And you're saying that's not the case?

B (23:11)

No, that's not the case. That's.

A (23:12)

So let's talk about what is still ongoing. This.

B (23:16)

Is that one of the ones that Brian asked you? Asked me?

A (23:19)

No, I just wondered.

B (23:21)

Okay.

A (23:22)

He actually, he said he likes you.

B (23:25)

That's nice.

A (23:26)

Yeah. I don't know if you guys are going to be hanging out playing pickleball

B (23:29)

after this, but if I get the invitation, I'll let you know.

C (23:35)

It's time to bring on the blooms at the Home Depot with spring Garden deals. Find savings on hanging baskets and flowers to brighten your backyard or any space that needs instant color. Then get everything you need to plant and protect them with low prices guaranteed on soil and mulch. Dig into spring garden deals for four days at the Home Depot now through May 10th exclusion supply. See homedepot.com pricematch for details.

D (24:05)

This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home with agents who close twice as many deals. When you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at redfin.com, own the dream,

A (24:34)

the publicist lawsuit, the Stephanie Jones lawsuit with her former colleague, Melissa Nathan. There was all sorts of allegations that, you know, she stole her phone, that they took, you know, the text messages were recovered, and you guys were the beneficiary of some improper behavior. Is there a chance that Lively will be forced to testify in one of those cases and we will see her on the stand?

B (25:05)

Well, I, I, I just want to back up because, like, it's, there has been discovery in that companion case, an ours about that phrase you used stole her phone. It's established in the record what happened. I mean, the phone was a company phone that belonged to jonesworks. And when, when Jen Abel left jonesworks, like, what happened if I left my law firm or if one of your employees over there left? They have to turn in their devices. That's how that happened.

A (25:37)

So that's, that's not how she characterized. But I, I get what you're saying, but there is litigation still ongoing amongst these PR firms, and there's a possibility that Lively and Baldoni will be forced to testify if there's a trial. And yes, there has been extensive discovery in this case. But it's much different to see this stuff in a pleading than it is to see people on the stand in court.

B (25:59)

Sure. I mean, Blake Lively has already testified under oath at a deposition in this case. She sat for seven hours and answered every question that was asked of her truthfully and effectively. So if she's called to testify, whether in that case or any other, she's of course going to comply with that legal process, and she's going to testify truthfully, effectively, without fear. I mean, she has nothing to. Absolutely nothing to hide. She's put everything out there. She has produced all of her documents, text messages that have been asked for. In this case, they've been provided to the other side. And, you know, if that's the way that those cases evolve, then that's the way those cases evolve.

A (26:38)

Smear campaigns. Do you feel like you've done anything to change the way that some of these PR people operate and the dark arts of shifting online sentiment and attacking people? We. Via bots or any of the other kinds of allegations that were made in this case.

B (26:58)

Just to clarify, we did not allege in our complaint that they attacked with bots. They claimed that. We claimed that they attacked with bots so that they could knock. So that they could. So that they could knock down that strawman and make us appear unreasonable. What we said occurred in this case was that a digital manipulation, or what they called a social manipulation campaign was launched, and that there was, in their own words, a very specific method that they were using for that. I do think that we've uncovered a lot about how that operation works and some of the people who are involved in it. As I mentioned before, there's now ongoing litigation in other cases involving the same people for engaging in the same type of, again, in their words, social manipulation, or the attempt to manipulate, essentially, algorithms that exist online that affects what people see when they sign onto their social media platforms. I think we've learned a lot about that in this case. I think the. If the 47:1 proceeding is going to continue to develop some of that evidence and bring it to light, I think these other cases that you've mentioned will do the same thing.

A (28:10)

I think there's now an awareness in the general public that there wasn't before. I mean, those of us in the legal and media community, we've known about these tactics. I've been the subject or victim. I don't want to call myself a victim, but I've had that happen to me in the past. And now I feel like you ask the average person about the tactics that people go to to manipulate opinion online. And people kind of generally know now that there's stuff going on behind the scenes of what you read. So maybe you guys played a role in that.

B (28:44)

Yeah, I, I, I think we did. I hope we did. I know that that was one of Ms. Lively's goals in bringing this litigation was to shine a light on

A (28:55)

what

B (28:56)

these kinds of companies and individuals are capable of doing. It's not obvious to most people that when they open up their Facebook app or Instagram or TikTok or whatever that what they're seeing is being essentially manipulated. Somebody's got a thumb on the scale.

A (29:15)

Everybody hates Amber Heard. Why does everybody hate Amber Heard?

B (29:18)

Well, it's not just that. It's also just like, why am I seeing a certain video pop up at this moment in time? And we know now that one thing that can be done is you can manipulate the comment sections of a post in a way that increases or appears to increase user engagement with it and that then causes more people to see it.

A (29:38)

Oh, Craig, are you listening? We have to get the comments to be nicer on the town. Town bots.

B (29:43)

No, I think what you see actually is it, it maybe doesn't even matter if they're nicer as long as it's more. And if there's more engagement and more active engagement within the comments section, suddenly that post is showing up in a lot more people's feeds. And if that's done in a sophisticated, coordinated manner and it's done at the same time, you have people out placing stories and backgrounding and influencing reporters, you can really have an effect on a narrative in a way that I think a lot of people haven't appreciated before. And if that's what our case does, is it alerts people who are involved in these kinds of real time situations what to look for, then we're very happy with what we've accomplished here.

A (30:26)

It's also kind of a check. I feel like this stuff was going on underground, behind the scenes and then exploded in public. And it might cause these crisis PR people from engaging these consultants the next time around or putting all this stuff in email where they're going after someone to try to smear them and maybe say, you know what? I saw what happened. In that case, I'm just not going to go there. Whereas before it's like you do whatever you got to do to help your client or the next guy is going to get the job. Maybe there's a shaming factor or maybe

B (31:03)

it encourages people to Engage in all of the perfectly reasonable, legitimate ways to boost visibility of a message.

A (31:11)

Right, yeah. Whisper campaigns. What happened to old fashioned shit talking? You know, that still works.

B (31:17)

What I'm saying, Matt, is there are perfectly open, transparent ways of carrying a message, right? A press release, a statement that gets issued, having a conversation in an interview. There's lots of ways of doing that, and there's lots of ways of doing it in ways that aren't traceable. And what people might think twice about moving forward is, is it really worth it to, you know, try to manipulate the comment sections of a TikTok post or try to manipulate the upvote or downvote count in a Reddit forum? Is that really worth it in order to score a few extra points in terms of likability online? I'm not sure it's worth it. And maybe we've. I hope we've sort of sparked that introspection and conversation, and I hope that what we continue to do, we'll do the same.

A (32:06)

I don't know that I am convinced that you guys are the winners here. We just have to see how this plays out. And if all of a sudden you get a judgment, tens of millions of dollars, boom, great. But if not, then you gave up a lot for the opportunity to litigate more.

B (32:23)

Yeah, I don't agree that we gave up a lot for the opportunity to litigate more. You're, of course, entitled to your views and judgment on that.

A (32:32)

I wish you well. You know, I don't have a horse here. I just, I'm looking at this objectively. And for a settlement to not really be a settlement, it's kind of tough.

B (32:41)

Yeah, well, isn't that sort of the point? I mean, usually in a settlement, there's not additional litigation. This is an unusual. This is an unusual settlement in which we have elected to proceed in a certain fashion. And, you know, the plaintiff is the master of her complaint. And it's always the case that you make strategic judgments about, maybe I'll bring this claim, maybe I won't bring that claim. Maybe I'll bring this claim in this setting and not the other one. Those kinds of strategic judgments are always made in every case, and litigation is never a sure thing. You're always making bets about the place where you're most likely to be successful. As I said earlier in the conversation, we've made that bet here on a claim where we think they have virtually no defenses, where the statutory damages tools are immensely powerful, and where the core of what Ms. Lively was hoping to bring to light and the core of her damages claims remain completely available to us in a setting where they can't appeal to us. That was a pretty good outcome.

A (33:41)

Before we go, how real was the Taylor Swift stuff? Were they really going to depose her?

B (33:46)

That was always a sideshow bat. I mean, before discovery ended, there was this crazy situation where they sent a process server to Travis Kelsey's compound in Kansas City and got arrested jumping over the fence trying to serve a deposition subpoena. In my view, that, like everything else that had to do with Taylor Swift in this case was an attempt to drag Ms. Lively's friends and all of this circus into the case to distract from what the real issues were. She never had anything to do, in our view, with the claims or defenses in the case and never thought that was anything other than a continuation of the strategy that they laid out early on to make sure that the media was talking about Taylor Swift and not about anything else.

A (34:33)

Well, I hope your client gets invited to the wedding.

B (34:35)

Thanks. I'll convey that to her.

A (34:38)

Well, you made a great argument today on the show. Appreciate you coming on.

B (34:41)

Thanks for having me, Matt.

A (34:42)

All right, no call sheet today. That's the show. I want to thank my guest, Michael Gottlieb, producer Craig Horbeck, Art Jon Jones, and I want to thank you for David E. Kelly episode that was supposed to run today will run next week instead. And we'll see you then.