Natalie (3:06)

Next Tuesday.

Emily (3:07)

Next Tuesday.

Nick (3:07)

Our second episode of the year.

Emily (3:09)

Well, we have our ass, Nick. On a Monday, and then on Tuesday, we'll, I think we'll drop that. Also on a personal level, greatest year of my life, truly. Yeah.

Natalie (3:20)

Had a baby, got married. Just.

Emily (3:23)

Yeah.

Natalie (3:23)

So many other.

Emily (3:25)

It's been really great. Yeah, I, I do like, I love, I love the life we built together. We had a great year. We got married. We had a baby. We've done some really cool things. Yeah, I love, I love what we built together. I love the atmosphere we raise our daughter in. You know, I'm really proud of us for that. Me, too. It's really cool.

Natalie (3:42)

We're doing good.

Emily (3:43)

Yeah.

Natalie (3:43)

We're going to keep doing better.

Emily (3:45)

It's honestly been the greatest year of my life. It's really, it's really been great. We've done so many cool things, so it's only up and to think how, how excited we are for 2025. It's really cool.

Natalie (3:56)

It is crazy to think that, like, it can get better from the year that we've had. You know, it's like we've had so many amazing things happen in 2024, and to think that, like, life is just going to get better, Better and sweeter, and obviously it'll come with ups and downs and challenges like, you know, any life does. But I, I, it is crazy to think that, like.

Emily (4:18)

Yeah, I'm trying not to get emotional, but I, I just love, I love doing this with you. I love, I love building this life with you.

Natalie (4:24)

Oh, I love you.

Emily (4:25)

I love you, too.

Natalie (4:26)

Well, I realized that I married into a family that opens presents all at once, and that was hard for me to digest.

Emily (4:33)

To say more. What, what happened? We had Christmas. Ev. Merry Christmas. Happy holidays. Happy Hanukkah. How's your Hanukkah?

Nick (4:38)

Thank you.

Natalie (4:38)

It's still going on.

Emily (4:39)

Eight nights. Oh, my God.

Natalie (4:41)

Eight crazy nights.

Emily (4:42)

Yeah. We are halfway through. We're in night four.

Natalie (4:45)

When people are listening to this, it will be night six. Of course, if I did that math.

Emily (4:50)

Right, which I think I did, is every Night, fun.

Natalie (4:54)

Every night is great. Yeah. Last night, my mom had a Hanukkah party. We did a secret Santa type thing. We call it Secret Maccabee with our whole family. Lots of Louis gifts that, you know, really cute, but nowhere to put anything.

Emily (5:09)

So wait, you're talking shit about my family?

Natalie (5:11)

No, no, no. My family, actually. Thank you very much.

Emily (5:15)

Our family.

Natalie (5:15)

Yeah, well, you know, like, everyone has their own way of doing holidays. I grew up in a family where Christmas Eve, my mom cooks a big dinner. We kind of all dress up to sit in the living room type of thing. We have a nice. My mom would. It would be like a seven course dinner, and it would be, you know, soup and salad and whatever. My mom really. She went all out for Christmas Eve. And then Christmas morning, we. Everyone would open stockings all at once. And then it went. Every year, it switched either youngest to oldest, oldest to youngest. And everyone opened up a gift one at a time. You were able to, like, enjoy that one gift. And it wasn't just like chaos. You could watch the other person. You see what everyone else got. I go to our family Christmas with. With your side of the family.

Emily (6:02)

And we were at the lake house.

Natalie (6:04)

And it is like, there is no order. There is no. No plan. There's nothing. It's just like, everyone's just opening up stuff. And I'm like, wait, what did you get? What. How. What's happening? And it's.

Emily (6:16)

I prefer that you do.

Nick (6:18)

My family does it your way, Natalie. And I'm like, why is the pressure on me Now I have to react a certain way to every gift. I'm like, let's just wrap it up.

Natalie (6:24)

No, you just become a pro. You're like, oh, I've always wanted a meat thermometer. Thank you, Aunt Suzanne. Like, you have to just. And that's the fun in. It is. And everyone's like, oh, like, Natalie hated that meat thermometer, but Aunt Suzanne is like, yay. I'm so glad you love it. You know, it's like the fun and getting your Oscar winning performance. But like, the lake. I couldn't even. I'm like, what did your dad get from your sister? And your. It was hard.

Emily (6:48)

Well, the good news is, babe, because going forward, we are. We're. We're. We're remodeling the lake house. Okay.

Natalie (6:53)

So that's exciting.

Emily (6:55)

Very exciting. We. We start in, like, in a week.

Nick (6:58)

What vibe are we going for? Is it modern?

Emily (7:00)

Is it just. Well, you'll have to follow along, Justin.

Nick (7:02)

Okay.

Natalie (7:03)

Are you knocking the whole thing down and rebuilding it or you're renovating.

Emily (7:06)

We are doing a quite the overhaul.

Natalie (7:09)

Wow, that's really exciting.

Emily (7:10)

We're investing in our future.

Natalie (7:12)

I posted a little picture of some selects we made and a lot of people thought it was the gold wall that was coming down. It is not the gold wall wall, but it is more exciting.

Emily (7:23)

Yeah. We're really going for it. Like, it's just like, you know, do we need anyone? So. But like, you know, obviously you guys know the lake house. My grandfather's lake house. I want it. Like having River. Yeah. Like next Christmas it's going to be. Well, that's what I was going to say to you. Listen, babe, we are hosting Christmas going forward.

Natalie (7:38)

And next Christmas it will be at our lake house. Youngest one at a time. And the elf. Someone has to pick to be the elf. Who's it going to be? Maybe river has to hand the gifts to each person. It was you this year. You didn't really know what the hell you were doing.

Emily (7:52)

I got fired. So I guess what I'm saying is, like, good news is we get to make our own traditions next year at the lake, which will be. We're going to host everybody. Not you guys. Yeah. What? I was so excited for a second there. Someday you guys will be able to come.

Nick (8:08)

I wasn't thinking so until you said that.

Emily (8:11)

I wanted to remodel the lake to be able to have family up and to host and to be there a lot.

Natalie (8:17)

And we obviously both come from huge families. So I think enjoy it. Yeah, definitely. Coming from huge families, I think it's nice to have a place where my family, your family, can all come together and it can fit everybody and it can, you know, it can be that. That place for us to make all the memories with river and all her cousins and aunts and uncles and stuff. So it will be really fun.

Emily (8:39)

It's gonna be an exciting year. I can't. I can't even. I can't even wrap my brain around how just exciting. I think next year is going to be for us. The show. You guys listening?

Natalie (8:50)

This is our last episode of vibe versus stats for 2024. Yeah, we vibes are going out losing still, but we are coming back strong before the end of the season. I feel it in my toes.

Emily (9:02)

This Vibes versus Stats segment of the Vile Files is brought to you by. Wonderful pistachios. Wonderful pistachios with no shells come in a variety of flavors including chili roasted honey roasted, sea salt and vinegar, smoky barbecue, sea salt and pepper jalapeno lime and the newest seasonal limited time edition sweet cinnamon with a wide range of flavors. There's a wonderful Pistachios product for every T and occasion. They're perfect for your game time gatherings or for taking you on the go. Visit wonderful pistachios.com to learn more. All right, now it's time for vibes versus Stats. The scores. Well, I mean, listen, it's been a couple weeks since we recorded. A lot has happened in the NFL. Beyonce had a dominant halftime show. Maybe that was the most dominating performance in the NFL since we last recorded. Packers were 1 and 1. They beat the Saints. They lost to the Vikings. A lot of stuff is going on in the NFL, but I don't even remember what scores we picked before we ended up recording. But I think the big takeaway is Beyonce crushed halftime. I don't know, maybe that's.

Natalie (9:52)

That was my biggest thing.

Emily (9:53)

That's the. That's the real score.

Nick (9:55)

We voted for Beyonce, so we won. Yeah.

Emily (9:57)

You guys, Beyonce. Okay, There you go. There you go. Thank you, wonderful Pistachios for sponsoring the segment of the voles. Visit wonderful pistachios.com to learn more. All right, well, now it's time to talk about, like, maybe one of the biggest stories of the year that dropped right before Christmas. Blake Lively filed a complaint against Justin Baldoni. It is a wild complaint filled with text messages, emails, a lot of accusations about some very weird and quite frankly, disgusting behavior of Justin Baldoni. And then the days that followed, you had Justin Baldoni's former publicist also sue Justin. There's text messages in there. It's a whole big story about not only Justin's behavior, but the industry in general. You have publicists involved, you have media itself involved in kind of how complicit they were. If in case you aren't aware, Blake ultimately filed a complaint talking about Justin's behavior on set along with some of his other people who run the company. So for the people who don't know, Justin is, I think, CEO or president of his production company, Wayfarer. And that production company was the production company that produced the movie. It ends with us. Sony is the distributor in this case, like abc, like Disney, it's there, the platform that distribute the movie. They are in fact in charge of the marketing for this movie now come to find out. So we'll go over the complaint in great detail. We have later this episode, Emily Baker coming on this episode. As you guys know, she's the former deputy district attorney of LA county and now are the Vol. UNOFFICIAL LEGAL EXPERT we'll get into the kind of legal aspects of this case. But just to start, in case you aren't aware or you haven't read it, I honestly recommend anyone following this to read the complaint. Is it a very important read? And it is full of details. I mean it's you, you. I mean it's a jaw dropping complaint of things that you just, you'll be shocked is out there. So ultimately it seems like, you know, this complaint is accusing Justin of sexual harassment, retaliation of the workplace. There's a lot of legal jargon that we'll break down with Emily later this episode, but it starts by kind of setting the stage about when they started filming this movie. All right? And as you, many of you guys know, there was a writers strike. So they stopped down. So they started filming this movie. Blake and Justin interacted. Apparently there were several complaints. There were several, like, you know, Blake was allegedly made to feel very uncomfortable.

Natalie (12:24)

And other cast, and other cast.

Emily (12:27)

And they stopped down when the writer strike happened, it seemed like. And there was then this big kind of HR meeting that included Ryan Reynolds. I think it's interesting to point out that back when, in August when everyone was talking about the story and we kind of knew that at some point Ryan Reynolds got involved, there was a lot of speculation that he took over the project and that Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively inserted their power. And according to this complaint, it really comes down to. Ryan Reynolds was playing the role of a husband who is coming there to support his wife who was being harassed in the workplace. And then there was this big meeting between Wayfair, Justin Baldoni's company, the people involved, a lot of people in the cast, Blake, Ryan Reynolds and then Sony Pictures and the people who were, you know, running this picture through Sony. And these were the list of things that I think it's important to point out that Justin Baldoni and his business partner Jamie Heath signed off on and agreed to. You know, they basically said, well, we don't see it the same way. They agreed to stop doing these, these things that Blake accused them of doing, right?

Natalie (13:32)

And this list of 30 things. They did not say, hey, none of this stuff's happened. They said, okay, fine, we won't do any more of this stuff.

Emily (13:39)

Well, I mean they, to be clear, they were just like, well, we see it differently. We agree. You know, it was, it was a very legal response, but it wasn't, hey.

Natalie (13:46)

I did not do that.

Emily (13:48)

And it was, they signed off on it to continue production because Blake said.

Natalie (13:52)

I will not continue if this stuff doesn't stop. So.

Emily (13:56)

So there was an acknowledgment.

Natalie (13:57)

Let's get into the stuff that Blake has listed in this, starting with number one. No more showing nude videos or images of women, including producer's wife, to Blake Live and or her employees. So we have Justin Baldoni showing. I think. I'm not sure if people are grasping this, but Justin Baldoni is showing Blake Lively and her employees nude images, nude videos of his wife.

Emily (14:22)

We come to find out later in the complaint that Jamie Heath, Justin's business partner and I think CEO of the company, was showing birthing videos of his wife kind of being fully exposed, fully nude, without Blake's consent to see this very intimate video of someone who wasn't in the room. I mean, so it's like they're showing nude videos.

Natalie (14:43)

No more mention of Mr. Baldoni or Mr. Heath's previous pornography addiction or Blake Lively's lack of pornography consumption to Blake Lively or to other crew members. No more discussions to Blake Lively and or her employees about personal experiences with sex, including as it relates to spouses or others. No more mention to Blake Lively and or her employees of personal times that physical consent was not given in sexual acts as either the abuser or the abused. No more descriptions of their own genitalia to Blake Lively. No more jokes or disparaging comments to be made to Blake Lively and or her employees about HR complaints Wayfarer has already received on set or about missing the HR meeting. No more inquiries about Mr. Baldoni to Blake Lively's trainer without her knowledge or consent to disclose her weight. No more mention by Mr. Baldoni of him speaking to Blake Lively's dead father. No more pressing by Mr. Baldoni for Blake Lively to disclose her religious beliefs or unsolicited sharing of his. If Blake Lively and or her infant is exposed to Covid again, Blake Lively must be provided with immediate notice as soon as Wayfair or any other producers become aware of such exposure without her needing to uncover days later herself.

Emily (16:04)

Keep in mind that when Blake Lively was filming this movie, she had a newborn baby, that she was being a mother to breastfeeding, taking care of her kid, all while working on set. Yeah, I think that's just important to acknowledge.

Natalie (16:19)

An intimacy coordinator must be present at all times when Blake Lively is on set in scenes with Mr. Baldoni, which there has been an interview resurfaced where the interview asks about the lack of intimacy coordinator in Blake Levy. Lively says, that's not normal, by the way. So proof that that did happen. No more personal physical touching of or sexual comments by Mr. Baldoni or Mr. Heath to be tolerated by Blake Lively and or any of her employees, as well as any female cast or crew without their express consent. No more improvising of kissing. All intimate touch must be choreographed in advance with Blake Lively and an intimacy coordinator. No biting or sucking of lip without Blake Lively's consent. And all intimate on camera touch and conversations must be in character, not spoken from Mr. Baldoni to Blake Lively personally. Blake Lively to have a representative on set at all times with a monitor during scenes involving nudity, sexual activity or violence with Mr. Baldoni. All actors participating with Blake Lively in intimate scenes involving her being in any state of nudity or simulated nudity must be classified as an active working actor, not friends of the director or producers, and must be pre approved by Blake Lively. So just a little context. The doctor in her giving birth scene in the film was Justin's buddy, wasn't a working actor, wasn't casted by a casting director, it was his friend.

Emily (17:52)

Later in this complaint, it reads how Justin Baldoni tried to convince Blake Lively that it was uncommon for women to wear clothes during delivery. So here you had Justin Bodoni, a man, trying to explain to Blake Lively, a mom of three, a mom of four at this point, what women do during birth. And according to Justin Baldoni, they all just strip down and get completely nude.

Natalie (18:14)

Which is not true.

Emily (18:15)

And he was trying to convince Blake to do that in a scene where.

Natalie (18:19)

His friend would be on set. No more filming of any Blake Lively nudity without a fully executed SAG compliant nudity writer in place. Any such footage already shot without this writer in place and in direct violation of SAG requirements may not be used without Blake Lively and her legal representative's prior written consent. Any scene by Blake Lively or another performer depicting the character of Lily that involves nudity or simulated sex must be conducted strictly in accordance with the above referenced nudity writer and must adhere to the Blake Lively approved script. An intimacy coordinator must be on set for all scenes involving nudity and or simulated sex and must have a monitor to ensure compliance. No monitors to be viewed or accessible on set or remotely during closed set scenes except by Blake Lively approved. Essential crew and personnel. No more entering, attempting to enter, interrupting, pressuring or asking Blake Lively to enter her trailer or the makeup trailer by Mr. Heath or Mr. Baldoni while she is nude for any reason. No more private multi hour meetings in Blake lively's trailer with Mr. Baldoni crying with no outside Blake Lively appointed representative to monitor no more pressing by Mr. Baldoni to sage any of Blake Lively's employees. Producer Alec Sachs to be given standard rights, inclusion and authority per her job description and as represented to Blake Lively when signing on. Sony must have an active daily role in overseeing physical production for the remainder of the film to monitor safety for cast and crew, schedule, logistics, problem solving and creative engagement of an experienced producer to supervise the safety of the cast and crew, schedule, logistics, problem solving creative for the remainder of the shoot. Engagement of Blake Lively approved a list Stunt double to perform Lily in scenes with Mr. Baldoni involving and or violence Blake Lively to perform only close up work or work from a Blake Lively pre approved shot list in scenes with Mr. Baldoni involving sexual violence. No more adding of sex scenes, oral sex or on camera climaxing by Blake Lively outside the scope of the script. Blake Lively approved when signing on to the project. There are three more to this list, as shocking as that may sound. No more asking or pressuring Blake Lively to cross physical picket lines. No more retaliatory or abusive behavior to Blake Lively for raising concerns or requesting safeguards. And an in person meeting before Production resumes with Mr. Baldoni, Mr. Heath, Mrs. Sachs, the Sony representative, the new producer Blake Lively and Bake Lively spouse Ryan Reynolds to confirm and approve a plan for implementation of the above that will be adhered to for the physical and emotional safety of Blake Lively, her employees and all the cast and crew moving forward. So they signed off on all that and they said, okay, agree, agree, agree, we'll stop doing all that. Let's resume filming.

Emily (21:28)

Yeah. And so obviously Justin and his partner Jamie Heath were aware of Blake's frustrations and so they continued to film. And then as the movie, you know, came out, Justin clearly wanted to get ahead of this to protect his own image. And looks like he hired these mercenary publicists that are professionals at creating these narratives. It's also important to point out that when they had this complaint, part of the agreement was that Justin and his team would not retaliate against Blake for voicing these concerns. We now come to find out, according to this complaint, that Justin and his team did quite the opposite, that he did in fact hire these publicists, these kind of crisis PR people. It turns out what they really are good at doing is crafting narratives, putting out hit pieces, things like that, changing public sentiment. They know how to create discourse and trolls, they're dealing with Reddit. And then they find we have all these text messages from these publicists giving the proof that this is in fact what Justin Baldoni intended to do.

Natalie (22:34)

Before we get into those, I think it is important to note that. I know another critique I had which obviously fell for the Justin Baldoni tactic was the way she was market this film. I know we talk about it a little bit more with Emily. So the marketing plan that Sony gave to everyone involved was to focus on Lily's strength and resilience as opposed to describing the film as a story about domestic violence. And to avoid talking about this film that makes it feel sad or heavy. It's a story of hope. So that was what they were all told. Hey, this is how you need to market this film.

Emily (23:10)

It's also important to point out because I know a lot of people have this perception of, like, well, Blake Lively. She's this big, famous, famous, powerful Hollywood person, and there's no denying that she is super famous and obviously has power. But again, just like ABC when they. They're the distributors of the Bachelor, for example, they're the ones who come up with a marketing campaign. It's not the Bachelor. It's not even the producers on the show. There may be some input and things like that, but ultimately, Sony is a huge company. You guys have probably heard of it. It's a. It's a massive entity. Whether you agree or disagree with their marketing strategy, they're not. They're not going to Blake Lively, who in this case is an actor and a producer in this movie. She's an employee of this movie. Right? And so we all just assumed. And then that was one of the big narratives that was out there back in August when everyone was just taking Justin's side. Everyone was just criticizing one person for the marketing strategy, and that was Blake Lively. They didn't. They didn't even think to consider to criticize Sony or anyone else as part of the cast. Everyone just pointed the blame to Blake. We now come to find out that Justin was aware of this strategy and didn't voice. Voice any complaints.

Natalie (24:15)

They did that to explain why they were not doing any press with him. They weren't photographed with him. What the public did not know was that Mr. Baldoni and his team did so in an effort to explain why many of the film's cast and crew had unfollowed Mr. Baldoni on social media and were not appearing with him in public. To that end, he and his team used domestic violence survivor content to protect his public image, as described in further detail below. So it was all a ploy by Justin and his team to ruin, in quotes, ruin Blake.

Emily (24:48)

Another big narrative that was going out there back, back when again was speaking to the power that Blake and Ryan allegedly have. And that the only reason that the entire cast was siding with Blake is because they, they had to, they wanted to side with the alleged most more powerful stories literally came out, you know, when everyone else was focusing on Blake giving interviews and how she handled herself being pregnant and whether she was rude 10 years ago in a particular interview here or there, well, everyone was focused on that. They were just dismissing any type of information that came out that suggested Justin might have been behaving inappropriately. And it was always like, oh, well, Blake and Ryan are just too powerful. We come to find out Justin's business partner, multi billionaire, who is the major financer of Justin's company. He's also his friend and also is part of the same church group. So they're very close in here. Alleged that at the premiere, Wayfair's co founder and chairman and leading financer is multi billionaires named Steve, who divulged at the film's New York premiere on August 6, 2024, that he was prepared to spend $100 million to ruin the lives of. Of Mrs. Lively and her family. Imagine that. I don't even know what Ryan and Blake are worth, but I don't think it's billions of dollars. And if you had a person worth billions of dollars make a threat like that, they were willing to spend a hundred million dollars to destroy you and your family's lives. How scary is that? What does that even mean?

Natalie (26:24)

I think it's also, I remember people saying, like, oh, Ryan's on set because he's trying to take over this film. And it's like, can you imagine being on set with someone who makes you feel so uncomfortable, who's doing all of these things to you? The one person I would want by my side is my husband, is the person who I feel the most safe with, the person who I feel protects me the most. That's who I want with me every single day while I have to interact with this creep.

Emily (26:49)

And he showed up and the entire Internet was like, no, he's not being a husband. He's just abusing his power. And like, it's like, like everyone wanted to think of it as a power play. Like the Internet wanted to find every reason and excuse not to believe Blake Lively for whatever reason.

Natalie (27:05)

I think we need to get honestly into some of the screenshots that were subpoenaed by his publicist and this crisis PR manager's phones. Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldoni Also has a couple of text mixed in with these, but these are, I think, very telling. I mean, I think honestly one of the ones that to me was the most shocking was when Justin Baldoni texted Jennifer Abel a screenshot of a tweet. And it has pictures of Hailey Bieber. And the caption of it is Hailey Bieber's history of bullying many women, not just Selena Gomez, throughout the year's thread. And he sends that screenshot to his publicist and says this is what we would need. So he wants to put out any history of, in quotes, Blake Lively bullying other women. His publicist responds with, yes, I literally just spoke to Melissa about this on the break about what we discussed last night for social and digital focus on Reddit, TikTok and Instagram.

Emily (28:11)

So here they are. They're just apparently like the playbook is to, you know, put out this information, have these blogs, these threads start, start creating the conversation through these bots. You put it out there and you try to have people organically try to like latch onto this. And it like it completely seemed to work.

Natalie (28:30)

They retained a subtractor, including a Texas based contractor named Jed Wallace, who weaponized a digital army around the country from New York to Los Angeles to create seed and promote content that appeared to be authentic on social media platforms and Internet chat forums. The Baldoni Wayfarer team would then feed pieces of this manufactured content to unwitting reporters, making content go viral in order to influence public opinion. I didn't even know this is possible, but they have hired this person to put a shit ton of likes on something, a shit ton of views to put it on your for you page to make it seem like it is the most viral piece of information that has ever gone out there. When in reality it's just like some guy in his basement clicking away on his computer. It's all false. None of it is genuine. But Justin Baldoni's team sent out a large wide email text saying hi team. So far, extremely limited pickup on Daily Mail or Page Six. We'll continue to keep an eye out and send pieces as needed, but so far it's been steady coverage on pure speculation. We've also started to see a shift on social due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan. Again, we'll continue to send links and screenshots, but wanted to send an update in the meantime. The same day, Melissa Nathan, who is this crisis PR team working for Justin, text Jennifer Abel, his publicist. The majority of Socials are so pro Justin and I don't even agree with half of them. Lol.

Emily (30:06)

Like his own people are like acknowledging that like again, they're, again, they're just, they're just hired guns. They're mercenaries. They're just here to do a job. They don't even care what they actually think. They're just, they're collecting a paycheck.

Natalie (30:17)

Oh, but just wa. Because it does get worse. Melissa then says he doesn't realize how lucky he is right now. We need to press on him just how fucking lucky. The whispering in the ear, the sexual connotations, like Jesus fucking Christ. Other members feeling uncomfortable watching it. I mean there's just so much like. So there they are, his own team acknowledging that what they've heard and what they know to have happened on set.

Emily (30:44)

Bullet Point 32 speaks to that. On one occasion, Mr. Baldoni and Ms. Lively were filming a slow dance scene scene for a montage in which no sound was recorded. Mr. Bodoni chose to let the camera roll and have them perform the scene, but did not act in character as Ryle. Instead, he spoke to Ms. Lively out of character as himself. At one point, he leaned forward and slowly dragged his lips from her ear and down her neck as he said, it smells so good. None of this was remotely in character or based on any dialogue in the script and nothing needed to be said because again, there was no sound. Mr. Baldoni was caressing Ms. Lively with his mouth in a way that had nothing to do with their roles. When Ms. Lively later objected to this behavior, Mr. Baldoni response was, I'm not even attracted to you. Who.

Natalie (31:32)

This isn't even in the script. You're just like ad libbing. Cameras aren't even rolling. Like this isn't part of the fucking film. And you're like touching all over this married woman who has four children. So obviously we saw a lot of these headlines come out. A lot of them. Obviously people believed. One of them being is Blake Lively set to be canceled. String of hard to watch videos that have surfaced following in quotes tone, death Q A to promote it ends with us could tarnish 36 year old star's golden Hollywood image for good. Melissa Nathan sends this article to Jennifer Abel and Jennifer Abel says, wow, you really outdid yourself with this piece. Melissa says, that's why you hired me, right? I'm the best. So here they are saying like, yep, we're planting this, we're putting this out there. We're trying to make our client look good and Blake Lively look bad. None of this is genuine. None of this is real. I think that's what's so crazy to grasp is that like, you know, people have said for years, like, don't believe everything you see on the Internet. And it's couldn't be more true now is like, how many of these have happened? And, and this. Melissa Nathan, her sister being a writer, reporter for all of these publications, have written so many terrible articles about so many people, and we just believe them because, oh, it's a headline, it's in the media, it must be real. No, these people are just paying them to do this.

Emily (32:58)

Another detail. On the day of shooting the scene in which Ms. Liley's character gives birth, Mr. Boni and Mr. Heath suddenly pressed Ms. Lively to simulate full nudity. Despite no mention of nudity for the scene in the script, her contract, or in previous creative discussions, Mr. Baldoni insisted to Ms. Lively that women give birth naked and that his wife had ripped her clothes off during labor. He claimed it was not normal for women to remain in their hospital gowns while giving birth. Ms. Lively, not normal? Here is a man telling a woman what is normal for women to do in childbirth. Huh?

Natalie (33:35)

It's ridiculous.

Emily (33:36)

When the birth scene was filmed, that scene was chaotic, crowded, and utterly lacking in standard industry protections for filming nude scenes. While filming the scene, Mr. Heath and Mr. Boni also failed to close the set while allowing non essential crew to pass through, while Ms. Lively was mostly nude with her legs spread wide in stirrups and only a small piece of fabric covering her genitalia. Among the non essential persons present that day was wayfair co founder, Mr. Sorowitz. This is the billionaire business partner of Mr. Baldoni who flew in for one of his few set visits. Ms. Lively was not provided with anything to cover herself up between takes until after she had made multiple requests.

Natalie (34:18)

Like, I'm sorry. You can hate Blake Lively all you want. You can think she's a mean girl, you can think she's annoying, you can think she's this and that. But you cannot tell me that Justin Baldoni is a warrior for women and a feminist and cares about women when these are the environments he's putting women in. Like, it's just. It's black and white. It's not gray. It's not confusing. It's not. Well, what about.

Emily (34:43)

It's.

Natalie (34:43)

It's. That's. It's clear as fucking day. He doesn't give a fuck about women. If he's making her do these things, he's adding in, like, after, after Blake signed on to the movie based on a draft of the script. Mr. Baldoni, without Ms. Lively's knowledge or consent, personally added graphic content, including a scene in which Ms. Lively was to orgasm on camera, like, what the fuck? And then he added them because he was making the film in quotes through the female gaze.

Emily (35:11)

Again he is explaining to Blake Lively and justifying him being a creep because he understands the female gaze, the arrogance of this person. Like again in the. The utter gaslight of this whole man to just make you feel like, huh, what is going like, you know what I'm saying? Imagine going to this place of business, this work where the director slash actor. And I also saw this tweet out there that someone pointed out the self identified feminist ally towards women is head of a company that bought a right to a movie about dv. Then he's directing this movie and casted himself as the lead male slash abuser in this movie. Which I don't know, I guess, but that's a weird thing to be like, you know what? I should. I know that I, huh. Like why are you so compelled to play this character? I don't know. Maybe that's nothing. But now that this information has comes out, doesn't it's. I don't know. Even that is a bit weird. This is incredibly disturbing. During a car ride with Ms. Lively, her assistant and driver. So we have two witnesses to this allegation. Mr. Baldoni claimed to Ms. Lively that he had been sexually abused by a former girlfriend, which has since been shared publicly. At the end of the story, Mr. Baldoni shared that had caused him to re examine his past. He then said that I always ask for consent. No. Justin said, did I always listen when they said no? He replies no what? Huh?

Natalie (36:36)

There's so much more in this complaint that Justin and Mr. Heath and all of these people involved with Justin have done. And there's proof and there's other people to corroborate that it wasn't just Blake Lively, it was her employees, it was other cast and crew. It was so many people that these two men, Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath, made feel so uncomfortable that there's just no hole to poke. Unfortunately, there is no hole to poke. And we're gonna link this in our bio. You can click it, you can read it for yourself.

Emily (37:08)

There's also the complaint of Justin's former publicist who's also suing Justin. And in that complaint there are also text messages of the hired.

Natalie (37:17)

The other two publicists, Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan.

Emily (37:20)

Thank you. And Even in that complaint, there are text messages between those two women verifying that they. Those two women even thought that Justin was creepy and weird and they didn't respect who he was. They were literally just hired guns. I mean, it is crazy how well known it was behind closed doors just how much of a creep Justin was. And his own hired guns, that worked for him. And their messages between each other are verifying this in a conversation again, and it's in a complaint that we will add to the description of the episode. You should check it out. Obviously, a lot of people have reached out to me to remind me that unlike most people on the Internet, I got it right way back when. To me, it's less about that I was right or I pointed things out. It was more just how quickly people were to not want to believe Blake over what we. Over nothing. You know what I'm saying? Like, stories were kind of coming out and questions were being raised about why is the cast separating themselves from Justin. And the Internet wanted nothing to do with it. It was complete. Everyone dismissed anything negative about Justin as Blake trying to control the narrative. We were dissecting these interviews of when she was pregnant over nothing. We were so quick to dismiss that. That. And again, it wasn't like I was out there saying, you know, back in August when I was saying, hey, I'm not sure if we should just side with Justin. I wasn't out there being like, blake, ly till I die, like that. I was just like, team Blake, no matter what. I wasn't even saying. I wasn't even necessarily agreeing with her. I was literally just saying, hey, maybe we should just like, ask different questions. Maybe we should consider the possibility that despite whatever you might think of Blake or however she handled herself in old interviews, maybe we should consider the possibility that there's another reason why the entire cast has separated themselves from Justin. And you all were like, shut the fuck up. We want nothing to do with it. And again, it just, it's. It's really eye opening on the industry itself, media outlets, you know how. You know, it's like, why is it even. I think there's also an acknowledgment that hit pieces exist. You know, there's been mention of hit pieces, there's been mention, mentions of narratives, but it's like no one. It's always like this thing that, like, oh, that doesn't really happen. They're not hit pieces. They're just. It's the truth. We're just getting the story out, you know, and now you can't read these complaints without a clear acknowledgment that spin is a real thing. These writers are like willing and able to write what you need to write them for the right amount of compensation or if your interests are aligned. You know, it's just, it's, it's a crazy story that I really think it's, it's just the beginning. I hope it's a valuable lesson that we all learn.

Natalie (40:12)

Obviously, that's a lot. I think Emily Baker can really break down the legality of all of this, so we should get to her. There's a lot of decisions you have to make when you have a baby, and the one that I feel the most comfortable and safe making is using Huggies. For our daughter river, the new Huggies Skin Essentials are here. A brand new dermatologist approved line of dia, diapers, wipes and pull ups training pants are all designed with baby's sensitive skin in months.

Emily (40:37)

Their wipes have zero harsh ingredients for a great gentle clean.

Natalie (40:42)

The Skin Essentials diapers features the Skin Protect Liner which is what helps take care of the ick and stick that can cause rash.

Emily (40:48)

Their whole diaper helps protect against the top two causes of rash by managing moisture and runny mess. Pull Up Skin Essentials has got your big kid covered too with a training pant that is ultra soft and breathable to help protect sensitive skin throughout potty training. Learn more@huggies.com Once again, head to huggies.com to learn more.

Natalie (41:08)

This year, there's nothing holding you back from loving your hair again. Hair is so much more than what you see on the surface. It's a reflection of what's happening inside. Let Nutrafol target the key root causes of your thinning hair and help you grow stronger, healthier strands from within. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement trusted by over 1 million people seeing thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutrafol. I'm one of those 1 million people. I've used Nutrafol for years now. I actually just did a end of year chop and I'm very excited to see how quickly and how healthy my hair is going to grow. Since taking Nutrafol, everyone's root causes of.

Emily (41:41)

Thinning hair are different. So a one size fits all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Neutral has multiple formulas that are tailored to give your hair what it needs to grow throughout different stages such as postpartum and menopause, as well as for different lifestyles such as plant based diets.

Natalie (41:56)

Start your hair growth journey with Neutral for. For a limited time, Neutrophil is offering our listeners $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping. When you go to Nutrafol.com and enter promo code V I A L L.

Emily (42:06)

Find out why over 4, 500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrifo for healthier hair. Neutral.com spelled n u t r-a f o l.com promo code V I A L L that is Dutchful.com promo code V I A l. Well, Emily, welcome back to the show.

Nick (42:21)

Thank you for having me. I'm glad to be back.

Emily (42:23)

It's so good to be with you. First off, happy holidays, happy New Year, all that fun stuff.

Nick (42:28)

I know it's been a good holidays. I tried to take a break and then lawyers are filing lawsuits on Christmas Eve. Merry Christmas to everyone but them.

Emily (42:37)

Yeah, obviously very wild as you know, like, like you said, this complaint broke, I think a couple days before Christmas, kind of of, you know, shock the world as we, we just talked about. But as always, it's always great to have you on to kind of break this down in layman's term to kind of understand this complaint as a whole. And then we have the complaint from Justin's former publicist also suing Justin. It really paints this kind of crazy story. I know you've gone through it in full detail. I guess I just want to hand it over to you and kind of get your thoughts on the complaint as a whole and then we'll ask some questions in terms of how does this come together and things like that.

Nick (43:13)

I mean, it's, it's quite a lot between the Lively complaint and then the Stephanie Johnson complaint. You've got a lot of receipts in these complaints, which the lawyers clearly took their time to go through. Celebrate Extractions. So the text messages are formatted like they came from a cell phone extraction, which we later learned that they did. But with the Blake Lively complaint, that is not a lawsuit yet. I've seen a lot of confusion about that. It is a complaint filed California with their civil rights division, which is a necessary step before you can bring a complaint for workplace harassment. So this is a necessary first step, people. I've seen a lot of chatter in my comments in my DMs, people saying, well, if this had all the receipts, why not just file it as a lawsuit? Well, you can't until it goes through that process because it is a workplace lawsuit. And I think that that's really the best place to start is the misunderstanding of, well, if it had all these receipts, why not just go ahead and file it? Well, because you can't for the type of litigation that it is, and that is a workplace harassment. So whether they want to file in federal court or in Los Angeles Superior Court, they have to go through this first and either go through an investigation with the California Department of Civil Rights or they have to go and get a right to sue letter, which means the California department's not going to investigate. And then they get a letter saying, go ahead and sue. And then they can go ahead and sue.

Emily (44:44)

Gotcha. So is this public information for everyone to look up if they want to? Because that was my understanding that lawsuits are public information. But are complaints always public? And if not, like, how did we become aware of this complaint? Is like the New York Times, I think, initially released something. How does that all kind of come them to be?

Nick (45:03)

It's such a great question. Once things are filed in the court system, then they're accessible. And you'll see this in New York, where sometimes you'll see a complaint that has a bunch of red text on it saying that it hasn't even been approved by the clerk yet. The public can still search those. This complaint was filed with the Civil Rights Board. That's an administrative action. Those aren't public and searchable. We have it as a public because the New York Times chose to link the entire lawsuit. So the New York Times had it and they chose to link it. But you go to a court website right now and find this because it hasn't been filed in court yet. So, no, it's not public. It was given to the New York Times.

Natalie (45:42)

I was struggling. Obviously you have to pay for the New York Times, which I am now subscribed to. But when this complaint first came out, someone had sent me the link because I hadn't paid for New York Times, I hadn't read the complaint. And I was like, oh, I'll just put this on my story. And ended up having like 14, 000 people click on it to read the complaint point from my story. Because it was like so hard to find just on Google.

Nick (46:05)

Yes, it was. It was incredibly hard to find. And that's because the New York Times had it. And this is not uncommon. We saw this in the Britney Spears conservatorship all the time, where TMZ had things before they hit the court website and before opposing counsel even had them. So is this anything new? No, not at all. This happens all the time. That somebody has it ahead of it hitting the public docket.

Natalie (46:28)

I've seen a lot of, like, why now? You know, like, if it happened so long ago, why do it now? Why has it? I mean, I'm sure there's a process. I feel like all legal stuff takes forever to happen. So, like, what is that process, and why did it happen three days before Christmas?

Nick (46:44)

I mean, this is actually pretty fast because a lot of what's being complained of is the PR campaign as the movie was launching in August. So we're not really that far away from what happened during the PR push for this movie. And if you look at all of the text messages, not only does that take time to extract a phone, but it also takes time to dig through sometimes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of text messages. And from the subsequent complaint with Jones Works, the PR company, we learned that that cell phone extraction was from a work phone from a active working publicist. So if that's a work phone, you can only imagine how many text messages we're talking about that they were digging through to make sure that, A, they under understood everything, and B, they had all the information. So in the scheme of litigation, this is pretty fast. And with Blake Lively's complaint, there was an entire HR process that happened before this movie even released to the public. So that HR process was going on before the movie resumed filming, after the writers strike and the SAG strike. So there was that entire PR or HR process, and then they finished filming, and then the movie got released, and then there were further problems, and then this started getting investigated. So it was complained about in proper channels and in proper course, but not publicly. It seems that the reason that the lawsuit came about is because the Internet was like, hey, it's kind of weird that y'all aren't in pictures together. And then that caused all of this to spiral out, or at least that's what it seems like to me.

Emily (48:21)

Yeah, I. I think it's been floating out there in terms of, like, how they came to accumulate all these text messages, but, like, I don't know what's accurate out there or what's just misinformation. How does someone get these text messages? Especially now as you're explaining it, it's not even at the lawsuit level. So. Yeah, how does that come to be where they can pull these messages from whoever?

Nick (48:46)

There's a couple options. But since we have the Jones Works lawsuit that was filed Christmas Eve in New York, we know that they said they were subpoenaed and then gave them over. However, if you are employed and you have a work phone, your employer, depending on what your employment contract says, can extract your phone and give those to people, whether or not there's a subpoena, depending on what your employment agreement says, and depending on where you live, of course. But that's not your property. That's your employer's property. If your employer wants to go through and read all your emails, they can go through and read all your emails. But there are a lot of processes in different courts, and California is one of them, where before there's even a public lawsuit, you can still get. Get legal subpoenas. And we saw the lawyer for Baldoni and others say, well, my clients weren't subpoenaed. Well, right. Because the employer is the one who turned over the text messages and is now also suing, which they can do. Like your. Your work stuff isn't private.

Emily (49:40)

Interesting, huh? And so in Jones Works is the employer of Justin's former publicist who's also suing Justin. Did I get that right? Right.

Nick (49:51)

Yes. So Jones work and Stephanie Jones employed Jennifer Abel, and then Jennifer Abel brought in that other PR manager. Right. And so we've got what seems to be Jennifer Abel's phone and probably emails as well, because in the complaint with Blake Lively, it looked like there were some emails pulled as well. So her employer would have gone through all of that and pulled all of her emails, all of her delete history, all the rest of it. Because Jones Works seems to be a company of enough size that they have an IT department or an IT person that's doing all of that for them.

Emily (50:25)

That's kind of crazy. For all the Machiavellian kind of maneuvering that Abel and Nathan were doing, Abel sounds like she was simultaneously kind of stabbing her employer in the back while also still communicating via her work emails and phones. It's just like they were so smart but incredibly stupid at the same time. It's kind of fascinating.

Nick (50:48)

It happens quite often. We. I covered the Alec Murdoch case out of South Carolina quite a lot. And when news agencies did a Freedom of Information act request for the court clerk, who is in the middle of all kinds of mess for what she was doing. All of the stuff she was up to was in her publicly available emails because she's a government employee. So all the stuff she's emailing back and forth and jurors cell phone numbers and Nancy Grace's cell phone number and all of this other stuff she's emailing back and forth from an email that can be FO requested. It's wild. People don't think that their employers will actually get their emails. They will. And they probably also have AI programs that are tracking keywords too. So, yeah, your work emails aren't private ever.

Emily (51:32)

What are some of the things that you have noticed? The press and their coverage of this complaint, you know, what have they missed? Or what have you noticed that people aren't picking up on? Or, you know, things that are really standing out to you?

Nick (51:45)

One of the biggest things is people still think that it's a lawsuit. Not all the press is accurate in that. And talking about the process, but also not a lot of the press, especially the non legal coverage of it, doesn't talk about the fact that this is a necessary step before you can sue. Like, this isn't a, oh, it'd be nice if this is a you must do this, or if you bring a lawsuit, it'll just get thrown out if you haven't obtained that right to sue letter. And I haven't seen a lot of people talking about what a really a interesting, interesting employment law lawsuit this is, which I realize saying it out loud is a deeply nerdy thing to say, but employment litigation is incredibly interesting in California. It's very employee friendly. In this situation, Blake Lively is the employee and really she's suing for workplace retaliation. They cover the allegations of sexual harassment a lot. But this is really at the heart a retaliation lawsuit where Blake Lively went to hr, had HR meetings and said, hey, it's not okay with me if people just walk into my trailer while I'm nursing. And hey, it's not okay with me if people are all on set for scenes that are sex scenes or where there's nudity, which is incredibly common, that those are closed sets. Hey, it's not okay with me that people want to be in here while I'm having body makeup put on or removed. You know, really reasonable boundaries that happen on movie sets all the time. But the PR campaign after that is being alleged as workplace retaliation for going to hr.

Emily (53:19)

When you say retaliation, to be clear, this is not like when you say retaliation suit. It's not Blake retaliating. It is, you're saying Justin and Wayfarer, his company or whatever, they retaliated towards Blake for voicing her concerns about, about on set behavior and things like that. Just want to make sure, like, we're not saying, yes, Blake's retaliating.

Nick (53:43)

Absolutely. We're using retaliation in the very legal sense of the term because this is. Retaliation is actually the cause of action. In California, if you go to HR and say, hey, this is happening in the workplace, and then you turn around and get fired, that's kind of your classic case of workplace retaliation. You complained against something, and then you were the one punished for. For it. So Blake Lively is alleging she brought up issues in the workplace, and then she was the one punished for it, but in a very Hollywood blacklisty kind of a way, with a PR smear campaign. It's not a, we're going to fire you from this movie, but we're going to damage your reputation. And it seems to me from the lawsuit, this is my opinion twofold. We're going to damage you so you're untouchable, so you can't host Saturday Night Live, so you can't go meet with Target about your, you know, brands, and we're going to damage your reputation enough that if you voice these complaints about the work environment on set, no one will believe you. Which is really the most nefarious part of all of this. It's not discussed quite a lot. Is damage her reputation enough that if these allegations ever came forward, she wouldn't be believed because people would be like, yeah, but we hate Blake Lively, which is wild and also seems to have worked.

Emily (54:55)

Yeah, I mean, like. Like we discussed earlier, I mean, when this was all coming out and we were here on this show of saying, hey, just like, let's just maybe hold off and consider other narratives. I mean, there were stories finally getting out there about the possibility of Justin's behavior on set. And the entire Internet was like, we don't care. Nah, we're not interested. You know, it's like, on any other day with any other allegation, it would have been major news. But yet, like, at that point, Justin's team seemingly got ahead of it so quickly and. And created such a, I guess, compelling narrative online with all these kind of trolls and all these maneuvering that they were doing. I don't even know how they did it, but they were so successful that even in the mention in the complaint how even the people working for Justin were almost shocked how successful they were, how dismissive the entire Internet was of Blake and the possibility that Justin might not be behaving as he should. Good on set. And it was just a complete dismissal.

Nick (56:01)

Yeah. No. And not just the Internet, but also traditional media outlets that would normally cover allegations of something going on on set. Social media raised the red flags. Like, hey, isn't it weird that the author of the book, who sold the rights to the book to Jason Baldoni, and Wayfarer isn't with him on any of the press. What happened? Hey, Blake Lively and the rest of the cast aren't with the producer of the film. And then they really spun that narrative that, oh well, he doesn't agree with the way they're promoting it, which wasn't their plan. Was Sony's plan because Sony was the distributor. Did that plan go well? No. Is that Sony's plan that they were contractually obligated to fulfill? Yes. And that's in the lawsuit too. So I think the lawsuit from Blake Lively or the complaint, I'm going to use the words interchangeably because my brain is so lawsuit oriented. But the complaint from Blake Lively lays out that this was Sony's marketing plan, which I think was kind of affirmative PR on lively side showing, hey, the narrative was Justin Baldoni didn't agree with the, the way that they were marketing the movie. But that's not even factual because this was the Sony marketing plan. This wasn't rogue or, or unheard of or unknown to him. This was the marketing plan from the distributor of the film. From the get go. He spun the narrative that, oh, I just, I don't want to be associated. They're treating it too light heartedly, which I do think was a fail on Sony's part. But that's not, not necessarily the issue of the cast.

Natalie (57:27)

I mean, I remember I fell for that like when all of this was going on and I, I remember being like, as someone who's been through domestic violence, like, yeah, I don't love the way that Blake is talking about this. You know, it's not. And then come to find out like that's she was doing her job and Justin was maliciously like breaking contract to make her look worse.

Emily (57:48)

That's what's crazy about it too. And like to, to Nellie's point, I guess even I fell for it. I mean I, I certainly had my opinions about Justin in but I, you know, I wasn't as familiar with the contents of the book, but I have a basic understanding of how Hollywood works. The difference between a distributor and a production company versus an employee. But like there's just this perception of, oh, if you're a big celebrity, you have this immense control and power and everything you say you get your way. And that was this kind of the narrative that was spun in the sense that like, yeah, here you have Sony, massive company, legacy company. Everyone around the world has heard the name Sony, Sony. We've, we knew that Sony was the distributor and yet we just all Just assumed that if Blake was talking and promoting the book this way, it must be Blake's choice. And it couldn't, you know, and we just. All the Internet, we. When I say we blamed Blake for it. And then to Natalie's point, what just makes it even more sinister is that there's no documentation out there or suggesting that, like, Justin went to Sony and said, hey, guys, I disagree with this. Like, everything we've read or understand is that Justin also signed off or at least agreed or at least, or at a minimum didn't voice a complaint about him disagreeing with how Sony was planning on marketing this movie. He just behind everyone's back, made a decision on his own, knowing that it would. How it would come across and make Blake look the way he successfully made Blake look, which is so sinister. Especially when you consider the platform that Justin has made his entire career about and the fact that, like, he went behind her back knowing the optics of, you know, it's like he was so self aware about how people respond to these types of conversations regarding DV and domestic violence. For him to set up the woman in this situation to make her look the way he made her look is so. It's sinister. It's. It's like really dark and really.

Natalie (59:41)

Yeah, it's hard to be like, oh, he's such a warrior for women and, oh, he's such a feminist. And then to be like, but you did this to a woman. Like, how can you say that's who you are?

Emily (59:50)

He weaponized the whole movement. It's crazy around her. Just because he's been so involved in the movement and kind of understanding how people respond to certain messaging. I mean, the whole thing. There was this clip that you went around viral, and it was just like, Justin on the. On the. On the red carpet, and he was just like. And you saw it was in a couple interviews, because clearly this was something that he had crafted, you know, and that was my whole issue with Justin when I interviewed him. I was like, this guy's just my perception that he talked in talking points, you know, and so when he's saying, you know, we have to stop asking why do women stay? And start asking, why do men hurt? That's a great question, you know, but it's. Again, it's just a line. It's a. It's a. It's a punchy line. It sounds really great in sound bites. And then that we heard it in sound bites and everyone on the Internet is hurting. Oh, yes, that's a great question. Justin, of course, you know, and, and it's just like he, he just, he so carefully crafted this narrative. At least that's how it comes across in a way that it's just so, like when you really, really, when you take a step back and you look at all the details, it really paints a very icky picture about, like, how this all came to be and just how dark it was considering the platform he built his entire reputation on.

Nick (61:01)

Well, the lawsuit is written to leave a picture. And again, the lawsuit. I always say lawsuits are allegations and shade and again, complaint interchangeably. I think this will be a lawsuit soon. I think once we are out of the holidays, the California Civil Rights Division is going to be like, you go sue. We want nothing to do with this. Enjoy that. And I think we'll see this get filed in the new year in the courts in California. But government agencies are on that. Weird. We don't know what day it is and we're quasi working right now, so that's not going to happen until the new year. But it's written to really say they went after destroying her reputation so she wouldn't be believed about sexual harassment in the workplace. Like it really is a. Oh, well, we think the Internet doesn't want to believe women in the first place unless. And let's, let's, let's double down on that. That's our PR strategy. Let's say that she weaponizes feminism and that she and her husband are incredibly powerful. But when we talk about that campaign with Sony, it seems to me, and you guys would probably know better than I would, that he would be in the best position to have input in the marketing plan as the person who owns the rights to the story in the first place and is producing it and is directing it. It seems that he was in the position to change the director of marketing vis a vis Blake Lively, who, though probably more powerful in Hollywood, I don't know if her input would have been as well taken on that with Sony as his would. So it seemed that he could have had that off at the beginning.

Natalie (62:31)

What do you feel like was the most shocking to you when you first read the complaint? The first.

Nick (62:36)

That everything was in text messages, right? No, that everything was in text messages. And I don't. Look, people are going to say the text messages are altered. If they are, it will come out in the wash because all of this is going to get heavily litigated. We're going to see lawyers in the media throwing mud at one another. And we've seen a number of PR professionals and Crisis PR professionals thrown into the middle of this, none of their clients can be happy that their names are in the news. Like, nobody who works with pr, I would imagine, wants their PR to be the story. I imagine PR doesn't want them to be the story.

Emily (63:09)

I mean, interesting enough, PR and just media in general is the story. And, like, in a very. Not even that indirect way, these various publications and how they covered this story, I think are very much kind of in the spotlight. In the spotlight, you know, like, how did you know again, Page Six, E News, Us Weekly, People magazine. How did they choose or not choose to cover this story? And I just think it's really, you know, fascinating, scary. I don't know. But again, this shines an entire spotlight on the industry as a whole. Whole. And it, you know, it's like, as someone who's worked in this space a little bit, you know, I have friends in press and things like that. And every once in a while there'd be, like, article that would come out about me, and then I would see, like, a picture and I'd be like, why did they choose, like, this picture? And I look so stupid. And I would talk to my friends who, like, worked at E. News or whatever. I'm like, why do you guys do this? And they always would, like, play dumb. Just like, what are you talking. Oh, no. Like, they're just, like, random. It's. Everything's random, you know? And I'm like, no, it's not like. And it's just like, they wouldn't even admit it, you know, but you. It's like an acknowledgment that nothing in this space is random. It's an acknowledgment that, like, hired guns and publicity is. Is a. Is a thing, you know, that, like, you can craft narratives pro. Positively and negatively.

Natalie (64:26)

It's just like, it's like a negative story about Blake. They're choosing a photo where she's, like, not quite smiling yet because she looks a little bitchy.

Emily (64:34)

Yeah, right? And it's all very carefully.

Nick (64:36)

Thumbnail. Yeah, thumbnail photo. It's the shady thumbnail photo. The media crafted it first. YouTubers just stole it.

Emily (64:42)

Yeah. It's my hope is that it's a wake up call to all of us as consumers of fans of entertainment that we can no longer. In a way, I feel like the headline business is under review, so to speak. The fact that we, We. We get our nudes in headlines, the whole short clips on the Internet, that's where we get a lot of our information. How we craft our narratives. And I hope that this, you know, what eventually we assume will be a lawsuit will shed a light on just in how as viewers, we consume the entire Internet essentially just was so quick to dismiss the woman in this situation off of nothing, off of a handful of interviews that were suggesting that maybe she's kind of rude, you know, and that that's all it took for us to completely dismiss the victim in this scenario and believe someone who said some nice things every once in a while. And we got that information from headlines and a couple like clips on the Internet. And it wasn't by reading all the information or really asking the sound questions or paying attention to what was happening. We were just rushing to assumptions and just getting our information secondhand. And I, you know, I hope it's a wake up call for how we digest this information.

Nick (65:59)

Two things can be true. If Blake Lively was rude in interviews or if people interpreted it as rude in interviews and, you know, press junket days and had not great interviews, it doesn't mean she wasn't harassed in the workplace. And you can't harass somebody in the workplace because they've ever been rude. I'm sure everybody in the world has been rude at some point in their life. Whether that's been on camera or not is is different. But we all have less than great days. But that doesn't excuse or forgive what happened. But the Internet went that direction with, yeah, but maybe, maybe don't be rude in the text messages in the lawsuit. It was, was, yeah, I kind of hate how much the Internet just wants to on women. And then the last one was, yeah, but maybe don't be a see you next Tuesday, though. And so even the PR company or the PR agents that are being sued were like, yeah, but it's fine with us because like, you know, she deserved it was basically what those text messages were saying. And that's pretty awful. And when we saw the second lawsuit, you saw that even more because the second lawsuit took every opportunity because lawyers are shady af and we love gossip like lawyers love nothing more than gossip. And the second lawsuit from Jones Work PR has all the tea, but put in all those text messages of how much the PR agents that are being sued in both lawsuits dislike Justin Baldoni. It's all in there that they don't like him at all. And they, they don't really care. They're like, this is our client, this is our job.

Natalie (67:33)

What's crazy about the whole point of like, all she did was be rude. It's like, you don't have to be perfect to be a victim. You know, like, you can be a terrible person and you can still. Bad things can happen to you and you can still be victimized. And it's like the fact that people are like, oh my God, she was mean, she was rude, like, there's no way that, like, he would do this to her is the craziest thing.

Nick (67:57)

To me, it's hard because the way our court system works is that when you're the one suing or in a criminal case, when you're the one making the complaint or when something happened to you, you are the one. It feels like on trial, and we've seen this in any high profile trial you watch, you will see that people are picked apart. Everything they've ever said, every text message, it is part of how our court system works. And I think the broader society has kind of taken that on in questioning some people and not questioning others. And I think there's a difference between questioning circumstances and discounting what somebody is saying happened. But the court system is so adversarial, it makes it really difficult for people to sort out the two. And that two things can be true at once, especially in civil litigation. And that's because in most civil litigation you have apportioned liability. So if you're looking at a car accident and somebody's going through yellow and somebody else makes a turn, lawyers are going to be like, this is a terrible analogy. But you can apportion fault. Like, who's 51 more at fault? So our civil litigation system is very much set up to be like, okay, what did you do? What did you do? And how did we get here? But that doesn't always work cleanly. In employment litigation, when you're dealing with allegations of sexual harassment, it's not, not, what did you do? What did you do? How did we get here? It's what happened. Did you go through the proper forms to complain? And then where are we? So it's, it's difficult because when people come forward, they aren't ever going to be perfect, because no one is perfect. How they express themselves in court is going to be what matters the most. But at the DA's office in LA, we often talked about with juries, look, if you have a crime that happens in hell, your witnesses aren't angels like that. What? That was the kind of the core principle. If you have these horrible things happening in these horrible situations, the people who are also there have their own stuff going on, it doesn't mean they didn't see what they saw to that point.

Emily (70:01)

Emily, you kind of referenced it a few times just so the audience kind of understands how this all works. When Blake and her team are considering even filing this complaint that inevitably we assume is going to lead to a loss lawsuit, what are things that they have to consider? Because it's my what. What I'm hearing from you is that even if you're the person suing, once it goes to the lawsuit, everyone involved is exposed, so to speak. Right. So if Blake is suing Justin, I'm assuming they really have to have their ducks in a row, so to speak. Because if let's, you know, for anyone out there questioning Blake or saying, oh, we don't believe her, or, you know, trying to poke holes in this complaint. Complaint, what would happen if let's say they weren't telling the truth? I guess what I'm saying is they. What do they have to consider and how detailed do they have to be and how would they be exposing themselves if for some reason, you know, this was all just a made up thing and Justin was still the innocent angel that he wants everyone to think he is?

Nick (71:08)

Undertaking civil litigation is not easy for anyone. And often the winners are the lawyers because they walk away with the most money. So if, like at the most basic question I've seen around the Internet is, what if these text messages are fake? Well, if lawyers put forth fake text messages in a complaint to the court, they can face substantial action against them because you have a duty of candor to the court under your license. Now with all the Tom Girardi stuff we've seen, how seriously California may or may not take some of that, but they tell all the peon lawyers that you will be disbarred. So you can't put fake information into a complaint into court court. This complaint is going to the California Department of Civil Rights. But you still can't lie to them. So sometimes you will see lawyers say, on information and belief, meaning this is what my client has told me and we're waiting to verify it. So you will see that language in lawsuits. But you have to have and anyone who's seen Legally Blonde more than once, and haven't we all, it has to have a reasonable belief that there's evidentiary support, support for the complaint. So you're putting it forward, saying, I believe these things to be true. If at the end of the day, this gets filed as a lawsuit, which I think it will, then there will be motions to dismiss, and then the judge will start to evaluate it and Then there will be motions for summary judgment, and those have a lot more information behind them after discovery. But what Blake Lively is opening herself up to by filing this is mutual discovery. So not just, just what was going on for Justin Baldoni and potentially with his phone records and emails between all of the co defendants, the PR company Wayfarer Studios, but her as well. The discovery goes both ways. She'll be sitting for a deposition. Ryan Reynolds probably will too, because he was at that HR meeting and everyone else at that meeting. And we saw the 30 point request from that HR meeting. Everyone else at that meeting is going to be dragged into depositions as well. So now, now, Blake Lively and her lawyers would have sat down and said, okay, these are all the people that are going to be deposed. The head of Sony Studios, if they were involved in the hr, everyone from Wayfair, everyone on set that was part of this HR meeting and more.

Emily (73:24)

And the potential cast, all the people who kind of separated themselves along with Blake from Justin.

Nick (73:30)

Yes. So if you're not going to have support in the workplace, this, this lawsuit will make it worse. If you have a lot of support, people are going to say, no, we absolutely support you. Depose me. Let's go. I'm happy to tell them my side. So it really depends on the positioning. And since this lawsuit dropped, so many have come forward in support of Blake Lively. I've not seen. And if, if I'm missing it, it's been the holidays, so please let me know. I've not seen a ton of people coming forward in support of Baldoni. I've seen his podcast co host leave. I've seen his agency drop him. I've not seen a lot of people say, I don't believe this about him. Which when stuff comes, comes up, you will often see people supporting both sides. And we're, we're at a very much an imbalance here of where the support is leaning from those that were on set and from those that know Blake Lively as well.

Emily (74:23)

I just want to just clarify one thing and you can say yes or no. But just to reiterate everything, it is safe to assume that Blake and her team, and specifically her lawyers, they must have. Blake and her lawyers considered, you know, and got the green light from all the people and like checked, you know, dotted their eyes and crossed their TE's before they would file something like this. They considered all those things that you just reviewed with us to make sure that they had a strong case moving forward. Like we can assume that.

Nick (74:50)

Yeah, absolutely. And they would have had not only extensive conversations with her about how invasive this process will be. I don't follow. I follow celebrities once they end up in lawsuits, but I don't follow broader celebrity culture as much because the lawsuits have been so busy over the last four years. But Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds strike me as fairly private Hollywood personalities. They don't seem to put a ton of their life on display. It seems that they allow glimpses when they're doing stuff, but kind of keep their kids offline. They're not constantly being photographed by paparazzi. They seem to be protective of their privacy. This is the opposite of that to the extreme. So this is a very invasive process that she has the opportunity to choose, go forward and sue or don't. She might have felt like she didn't have a choice because otherwise the narrative would just keep running and she wouldn't be able to promote her brands and work. But she can choose to sue or not, and it's going to get incredibly invasive for all the parties involved. What I will say is, because this is an employment lawsuit, we saw or will be in this complaint, we saw the breakdown of that HR meeting. There were a ton of people involved, involved. So that HR meeting that happened before they resumed filming would have been well documented and well attended. And I imagine there are probably emails surrounding what it looks like to resume filming with tons of people. And the lawyers would have reviewed all that saying, yes, you had been raising these red flags. Yes, these other people had been raising these red flags. They would have pulled all of that from Blake Lively. And anyone who would choose to disclose that, that if other members of the cast had made HR complaints, they probably have all that before they even brought this lawsuit. And those things in companies that are very large, working on sets are going to be really well documented.

Emily (76:35)

It almost seems like Justin's lawyer's response in his response initially was, this is all about Blake trying to build up her reputation that was damaged back when, you know, back in August. But everything we just discussed almost suggests the opposite. Like you said, to do, this isn't just like Blake talking, giving an interview and making some flippant accusations, you know, to say, oh, it's not me, it's actually Justin. This really opens up the door for a lot of emotional distress, a lot of anguish, a lot of exposure. You don't do this unless you're very serious, unless you have a lot of evidence backing it up. This is not, you know, you don't do this for. Or the accusations of which Justin's lawyer seems to be suggesting this is not.

Nick (77:23)

Something you undertake lightly. And Justin's attorney, who is also a pit bull in his own right, definitely leaned into the narrative that's already existing about Blake Lively and just continued to lean into that PR playbook. But Brian Friedman works regularly with Mark Garrigus. You've seen his name come up in the, the Bravo reality reckoning. He's involved in a lot of those lawsuits with, with Rachel Levis in that lawsuit against Tom and Ariana. So he is well versed with Hollywood and he is definitely a lawyer that is going to fight in your corner. But that's not to say Blake Lively's lawyers aren't. And when we look at Stephanie Jones and the Jones work lawsuit, she brought in Quinn Emanuel, who as a law firm has absolutely no chill at all. They are currently representing Jay Z in New York and other things. So we're talking about, about very powerful law firms that are just going to go all out with each other. So thinking that this is going to be easy is, is not, is not accurate. It's not easy, it's not fun. A lot of people choose not to bring civil lawsuits because of how invasive it is. And even if they have conversations with lawyers, they often decide not to pursue it because it's more worth it to just let it go. Know it's the same, unfortunately, with criminal prosecutions. A lot of people will sit down with police or prosecutors and talk about what the process is like and say, you know what, at the end of the day, I rather just try to move on. And so this is, this is going to be a very invasive process for everybody. And I don't think that any side is going to settle because too much is on the table now. There's, there's way too much out there for Baldoni to turn around and want to settle. And I don't know if Blake Lively would want to and has the money to choose not to.

Natalie (79:13)

We keep talking about this HR meeting that happened January 2024, right before filming resumed. There were seven or so people there. And at the beginning of this complaint, it talks about this HR meeting and it says, you know, before the third, the list of 30 things. It says the January 4th meeting occurred only after Wayfarer had rebuffed Ms. Lively's efforts repeatedly. What does that mean?

Nick (79:38)

It means that she had tried to resolve this short of having an all hands HR meeting to me, and they had said, no, it's fine, no, it's fine. No, we're not going to do that. So it seems like she didn't immediately escalate this to a. All hands. I'm not going to resume filming until we have an HR meeting. It seems that she tried to say, hey. And this is again my interpretation of what they mean by rebuffed. Hey. Um, I don't have a breastfeeding space at work, which also you can't do in California. But I don't have a breastfeeding feeding space at work that's going to be in my trailer. So when the door is closed to my trailer, nobody can come in. That like setting up those basic boundaries. And it seemed that Wayfarer was like, well, you know, we're not doing that. That is my interpretation based on what that says that she tried to handle it before escalating it, which for all of us that have had jobs, you try to handle things before you escalate it. Nobody wants to escalate it to a full blown HR meeting. I imagine no one in Hollywood wants to have to have the distribution company Sony coming in to mitigate a workplace that has become untenable because for everyone involved, it's just embarrassing. You don't want to have to sit there and be like, hey, we can't talk about your porn addiction in the workplace. Like, why do we even have to say these things out loud? And you know, again, California tends to lead the nation in, in employee friendly regulations, and that includes things like safe spaces to nurse that aren't a bathroom. But a lot of employers still don't do that. You would think a private trailer should be private when you are four months postpartum. But I'm particularly flustered by that because it's something that I've dealt with personally, as I'm sure many have. It's just, come on, give. Give people the space that they need when they are going back to work as working parents make it easier for everybody.

Emily (81:31)

But again, we're talking at a per. We're talking about a. A man who again, has made his whole brand out of signaling this virtue about being an ally. And you know, just again, he comes across for me as the type of guy who, you know, talks about how he understands the plight of women so much that, like, it's like, it's. It's like one big gaslight. You know, it's just like, hey, I'm on your side, I'm on your side. So I don't. Honestly, it's like Justin will walk into a room of a woman breastfeeding and be like, it's okay, I'm not uncomfortable. You Know, Right. You know, it's like, and, and imply that you're not, you know, the woman breastfeeding shouldn't be uncomfortable because me, the ally that I am, this is all normal. You know, hey, everyone breastfeeds. It's okay. You know? And, like, he acts like, as if he says stuff like that. Like, the, the complaint is filled with accusations of Justin saying and doing inappropriate things to these people. And when they voiced their frustration, it was a lot of, like, dismissive reactions from Justin being like, oh, it's okay. I can say that. I think there was one moment where he's like, it's okay, my wife's on set. I can say that today. As if, like, oh, he, he called a. There's a accusation. And part of the complaint that he talked to another woman on set and said he thought her pants were sexy. You know, things like that. It's just like, he's like, no, no, don't be uncomfortable.

Nick (82:51)

My wife's here. It's like, please don't comment on my body at work. That's weird. And he's like, no, you're making it weird. It's not weird. You're making it weird. Yeah, it is very dismissive and gaslighting. And I think one of the things I took issue with as well in the complaint, and this is just me being me taking issue because I am very adhd, and it's something I have dealt with with learning disabilities since I was in school, is the, the plan to blame things. Things on his very recent diagnosis of adhd. And it's like, look, if we need to get on to, like, Dr. Amen's podcast so I can talk about the fact that if these things come out, I have an excuse. And I'm like, what?

Emily (83:34)

No, it's what's crazy. And like, I'm adhd. I'm dyslexic. I have all these things. I, I, I can be aloof.

Nick (83:41)

How have we not talked about this?

Emily (83:43)

I mean, because, because we don't leave, we don't lead with our. Are our issues that we have, we overcome them, Emily, you know, and it's just so frustrating. And yes, I have, being who I am, have said awkward things in social settings. I've had to learn the hard way. Sometimes I've been accused of being rude. That doesn't, like, I don't walk around, be like, it's okay, I'm adhd. What? Like, it's. Huh. No, it's something I have to work on. Just like, if, you know, Blake may Have to work on things when she, you know, like every. Everyone in the public eye, you know, whether you're Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds and you're. You're that level of celebrity or you're a former reality TV star, if you get noticed in public, you have to learn how to interact with people. You know, when they walk up to you at dinner and say, hey, I'm sorry for interrupting. Can I take a picture? You know, when people are. When. When Natalie and I travel, we're on a plane, you. It's a weird thing for people to get uncomfortable and nervous and fan out, and you have to learn how to respond on. And you don't always get it right. You know, I've gotten it wrong. I've had bad reactions from, you know, people I've met in public, not because I was intending to be rude, but, like, I just. I didn't meet their expectations. That's often how it is when you. When fans meet a celebrity, and it's that the celebrity doesn't meet their expectations of how they thought the celebrity should act around them. And sometimes they have the right to feel the way they do, and sometimes it's just their own. Own interpretation of the situation. But it's.

Natalie (85:10)

You know, I also think him blaming it on his ADHD is like, We've seen him interact with fans. We've seen him in a crowd of people, and he's suave. He's like, you know, he has the whole room in his hand.

Emily (85:24)

And then, like, always says the right thing.

Natalie (85:26)

He always says the right thing. And then for, like, him to say, well, you know, if some of this stuff gets out, we'll just blame it on that. It's like, oh, I didn't realize ADHD made you say, like, oh, yeah, like, I want to talk about. About my dick to strangers.

Emily (85:39)

Yeah, like, thank you.

Natalie (85:40)

Yeah, you know, that. Sorry. That's a weird cop out.

Emily (85:43)

I've. I've been ADHD and I've been aloof, but I know right and wrong. I know boundaries. I know what's inappropriate. I know what not to say. I've, you know, like, that's not. It's not. It's. It's such a excuse, like, you don't. That I don't know where all of a sudden, like, not understanding, quote, unquote, social cues is an excuse for, or being dismissive or making women feel uncomfortable or saying inappropriate things or acting inappropriately. What does ADHD come in when you are allowing investors or people who should not be on set in a Closed set scene. How does that explain that? It doesn't explain that.

Nick (86:20)

It's interesting to me, and both of you mentioned this is the searching for an excuse, not searching for a way to say, this didn't happen on set and these complaints never came up. And this HR meeting never came up. Up. It was a way to explain the things that were being complained about. Like, this is the explanation, and if that explanation doesn't work. But also, Blake Lively is a mean girl. Like, we're going to get the women on our side by calling her a mean girl, because most women have dealt with mean girls, but we're not in junior high. You can't sexually harass someone in the workplace, and then you can't try to ruin their career, which is what's being alleged here. If they bring it up in the workplace place. I don't know if this would have become public if he hadn't gone on the offensive. When the Internet started asking what I thought were reasonable questions of, hey, y'all aren't being pictured together. That seems strange.

Natalie (87:13)

Yeah. It's like everyone wants to say, oh, Blake Lively's lying, or, oh, let's not believe Blake Lively. But it's like, Justin isn't even defending himself. He's just saying, oh, let's make sure we have a plan and excuses ready for when this comes out. Because I know I did all this, but we need a reason as to why I did all this.

Emily (87:28)

Also, to your point, Emily, like, there's a good chance that Blake Lyly never even brought this complaint to where it is now. Had Justin not do the whole revenge part. Like, if it was just. If it just stopped at his behavior on set, I'm guessing there's a good chance it never got to this point, you know, but because he went on the offensive because he tried to destroy her credibility, There's a part in this complaint that talks about. And I think it's a really important, you know, section. The whole narrative early on was, oh, Blake and Ryan Reynolds are so rich and powerful, yada, yada. And this. This whole, you know, the whole argument was like, oh, well, the only reason why her castmates are siding with Blake is because she's rich and powerful. Well, as it turns out that Justin Baldoni's business partner, friend, and church buddy, which, you know, when you go to the same church, there's a level of, you know, loyalty there that I think maybe goes beyond just normal colleagues. And he's worth a couple bill, you know, so he is, you know, and in the Complaint. There is an allegation that at the premiere, this billionaire friend of Justin, financier of the company, was overheard saying that he was willing to spend up to $100 million to destroy Blake. Huh.

Nick (88:41)

I'm so interested where that quote came from and how that all came out. Like I. There are a few, few questions that I am left with and all lawsuits are going to leave me with questions because Lawyer. But how they know that and where that came from, who heard it, who related to them, I have so many questions. It's such a specific thing to say. But they're going to end up spending quite a bit in legal fees because Wayfarer and Beldoni are being sued or are likely to be sued in two jurisdictions because we have the Stephanie Jones Jones work going forward in New York. And then we have the LA potential lawsuit when the right to sue letter comes through. And I do think this will get filed. I don't imagine that we will see this resolve before it gets filed. And if it does, I imagine there would be a statement explaining that. But you've got people fighting in two different jurisdictions on separate sides of the country. So for the defendants, including Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, it's going to get expensive to mount, to mount these lawsuits and it's going to get expensive quickly. I mean, I mean, for this type of suit, I imagine most attorneys are starting with a $50,000 retainer at a minimum, and that is a generously low minimum, if not a hundred thousand dollar retainer. So it's going to be expensive.

Emily (89:58)

But that accusation about that $100 million, we can assume if it does go to court, we'll find out why they felt so comfortable including that in the complaint. Because like you said, it's not a, it's not, it's not a text message message. You know, it is something that someone overheard. But I assume there's a witness there that might be called or something. Right. They wouldn't just write that in as hearsay. You know, there's plenty there that they don't need to include. You know, the fluff like this. What's it was that. And that's what's so interesting. And you know, before we let you go, Emily, it really felt like this complaint was very, really just laid out the facts. It was just very detailed. It didn't have a lot of fluff. It didn't have a lot of storytelling. It was just like point by point all the random, creepy and odd things that Justin said and did with his colleagues, you know, towards Blake and the rest of the cast.

Nick (90:49)

It had some, I think that it was written in a way that it could be read and understood by not just media, but by individuals. And it definitely had a fair few of details. I think including the Sony marketing campaign was necessary, but also had multiple purposes. It was kind of a plus plus on, hey, he's slamming her for this media campaign. And hey, we know that this is contrived because here's the marketing plan, but it also signals to the public, hey, also, here's this marketing plan. So there was a lot in this lawsuit that served multiple purposes, but complaints are written to also tell the story. They are written when people are like, oh, they cherry picked the text messages. Of course they did. It's their complaint. Their complaint is advocacy for their client. From their perspective, it is their story. It is not there to tell both sides. A filing from a plaintiff is there to paint the plaintiff side in the light most favorable to them. A filing by a defendant is there to paint the story in the light most favorable to them and the light most negative to the plaintiff. So lawsuits are very much an adversarial proceeding. And people forget that too. They're like, this is very one sided. Sided, yes, at this point, it is very one sided. But it's why I like to cover court so much, because when this gets filed, it will be responded to. And we've already seen Bon's lawyer respond in the media saying, this is all Blake trying to salvage her reputation and this is a salacious lawsuit. Show me a lawsuit about celebrities lately that doesn't have salaciousness in it. I mean, all of them do. It is part of the playbook of litigation at the.

Emily (92:34)

Well, Justin's lawyer also stated that they plan on also countersuing. What might that look like? And is that just something that everyone in, like the type of lawyer that Justin has that just. Is that just kind of standard operating procedure? Does that potentially open up Justin as well? Like, I'm sure they'll have their own narrative like you just suggested it would be. It'll be from the POV of Justin. But like, you know, how strong do you feel like this complaint is? And what do you, you know, if you were to speculate on how Justin's lawy might fight this, assuming everything that Blake laid out is true and that, you know, Justin's lawyer's argument is like, we just have the wrong perspective. That seems to be their argument. It's just like, well, we're not denying it happened, it's just why it happened and how it came to be. And, and the framing of, of the story is completely misrepresented. How do you think they will do that without exposing themselves and look like they're lying?

Nick (93:31)

They are already in it. So they're already already likely to be sued. They're already being sued in New York. They can't file a countersuit yet because generally a countersuit if we're going to be hyper specific and legal is if Blake Lively had filed this in court already, you can countersue within that same lawsuit. So it's within the same body of that lawsuit. This isn't filed in court yet. They don't have a right to sue letter yet. So he can't countersue within this lawsuit suit. They can respond to the California Department of Civil Rights. If that department does an investigation, they can respond there. But I think by countersuit, he means that he might proactively sue because he said he was going to do that this week, which there's no lawsuit docketed yet for Blake Lively. So it would have to be their own lawsuit. But Justin Baldon is already being sued in New York. This complaint is likely to move forward. He's already open to discovery. They already have these text messages, messages. So for them, it's going to be telling their side of the story. And I imagine we will see. Oh, gosh. I don't even know what causes of action they'll bring because I don't know what they have or what they know. But it'll be a counter narrative to this that this is not really an employment dispute and this isn't really intentional infliction of emotional distress. And the things Blake Lively said in the interviews are why the Internet did this. And this has nothing to do with his PR campaign. It'll be interesting to see what causes of action he chooses to bring and whether it involves invasion of privacy. But that lawsuit might be between Justin Baldoni and Stephanie Jones, the PR firm that released all these text messages. That seems like a cleaner path than to also bring, like, Blake Lively into it. But for Baldoni to go after Jones in New York York and then drag or attempt to drag Blake Lively into the New York lawsuit, that seems to be the clearer path. If they're really going to bring a countersuit is bringing it in New York and talking about invasion of privacy and the text messages and what have you.

Emily (95:33)

It really seems like the publicist and both these complaints are like the linchpin.

Nick (95:38)

Almost just because you're absolutely right.

Emily (95:42)

Like, they're the hired guns who, like, don't Even clearly have loyalty to Justin. They're just there to be hired, and now they're exposed and their careers and credibility are on the line. It'll be interesting to see how these two women, how they go about, you know, defending themselves or how they handle these complaints.

Nick (96:00)

I do have one question for all of you before I go, though.

Natalie (96:02)

Yes.

Nick (96:03)

Are you looking forward to seeing kind of the veil pulled back on Hollywood PR campaigns? Because that's one thing I'm really interested in this lawsuit is to see how much, much of the curtain gets pulled back for the public to look at what being blacklisted in Hollywood truly looks like. Like, what does it really look like too?

Emily (96:21)

I, I mean, I really am, and I've thought about this over the weekend. I, I really hope this is a wake up call for the industry itself, for consumers of pop culture and media in general. You know, as someone who works in the, the long form space in podcasting, to me this is, is, again, I think it puts a spotlight on short form content. I put on content, I puts a spotlight on headlines. You know, we're just, we've become such a lazy society in terms of how we get our information. We read a headline, we don't click on and actually read the article. We watch, you know, 15 seconds of a clip, you know, we form an opinion. And I think now you really have to be willing to listen to a whole episode or read a whole article, or when you hear a narrative, you have to be willing to ask yourself the question, I don't know, is this accurate? Or do I need to, like, Google for 15 seconds and fact check what's out there? I, you know, I listen. I wish we lived in a world where we could trust information that's out there. But I think time and time again this year we're reminded that, like, we have to be more discerning as consumers in terms of what we believe and not believe. And I do hope that, yes, I hope it becomes a spotlight on the end. I hope it's a spotlight on the industry because again, again, it's an acknowledgment that hit pieces exist, that it's a thing that you, that these freelance writers are hired guns, you know, of crafting various narratives. There's.

Nick (97:49)

And you don't have to disclose it.

Emily (97:50)

No.

Nick (97:51)

Like, if you do a sponsorship, you have to disclose it. If you're promoting something, you, you and I both have to disclose it. But if a story is placed that doesn't have to be disclosed, if there's a relationship there, like the author is Sisters with the PR agent. Agent. That doesn't have to be disclosed at all. So it really brings up this level of who benefits? These are my questions when I read.

Emily (98:16)

Things, but also just the industry in general. How many articles have we listened to or how many articles, more importantly have been printed based off of an anonymous source? You know, like these. All these publications need no real information or evidence. There's no journalism period whatsoever going on here. It's just an anonymous source. Sometimes the anonymous source is the person themselves, themselves, who doesn't want to be quoted. Sometimes an anonymous source is the colleague who. Friend. A friend. Like, it's based off of nothing, you know what I'm saying? And all these rumors that get out. And it's just so easy again to have. All you need is someone willing to say, I heard this, I saw this, I know a person. That's all you need.

Natalie (98:56)

It also makes you think, I mean, like Melissa Nathan, who is this crisis PR who's on Justin Baldoni's team, her sister, Sarah Nathan, who is this quote unquote journalist for all of these publications, who's written some terrible articles about a lot of women, some Megan Markle. It makes you think, like, oh, Megan Markle. Like, she's had such. So many people have hated on Megan Markle. And like, is this another one of these, like, hit pieces? It just makes you think of how many women have Hollywood tried to tear down that like, we just believed because we read a headline.

Nick (99:29)

And I always wonder, as I said, when I. When I look at things, who benefits? And then where is the money and what you brought up, Nick, USA Today actually had a huge reckoning within USA Today because one of their journalists was just making up anonymous sources and they had to retract a ton of articles based on that. I talked to a number of independent media who had worked in legacy media, including Mandy Matney, who did the Murdoch Murders podcast and covered that. And she was talking about the immense pressure and understaffing to get the clicks that media companies are tracking. How far down a page your eye goes, how much of a story a reader is reading, and it is driving towards more clicks, more subscriptions, more articles that convert to subscriptions. How many subscriptions did New York Times convert based on publishing that lawsuit with people hitting a paywall and going, oh, I'll give you the $1 free trial and then I'm going to forget about it. And until some app tells me six months later, I'm still paying for the New York Times, and then I Cancel it. But the pressure of getting people to read further down the page and to grab those really clicks and views with headlines is driving some of this and then how understaffed media is, which is why I think new media in the long form, like your podcast, is thriving. Because I think a lot of people are tired of their attention being grabbed, nabbed in manipulative ways. Because most of those headlines are emotionally manipulative. They make you feel something first, and that feeling is generally anger or disgust. It's a negative or a more negative emotion because those are faster and stronger responses. You're like, ew, what?

Emily (101:07)

Right?

Nick (101:08)

Instead of, oh, my God, that's so uplifting.

Emily (101:09)

How many headlines have we read that blank slams blank for blank. And you're just like, huh? And then you read it and you're just like, someone, like, had like a. Well, I don't know, you know, like, I wouldn't have worn that sweater that, you know, Aaron wore or something. And it turns out, like, john, blast Aaron for wearing sweater or something. But you hear blast. You hear, like, exposed. You know, they expose. Eviscerates them. It's like, huh, did a murder happen? Like, what? H. You know, like. And it was like someone. Someone said something on a podcast that didn't even, like, come across as actual criticism if you actually listen to the podcast. But the publication uses words like slam scams, you know, eviscerates, you know, trashes, you know, things like that. And again, like, to your point, all of these platforms are just incentivized by clicks and traffic and in no way incentivized for truth and exposure. And then once a story gets out, like the Justin story that came out, and when the. You saw the wave of people siding with Justin, right? And you. It was clear, just by seeing the stories that came out, it was clear that these. These platforms were paying attention to where the narrative was heading. They were paying attention to, you know, what side people were siding on. And they were basing their stories and coverage around that right there. They weren't interested in getting it right. They were interested in riding the wave of public sentiment. And that seems to be the driving force now with these publications is just figuring out where sentiment going and make sure we. We. We ride that wave so that we can get the clicks and we can compete with all the other people out there doing riding the wave as well.

Nick (102:48)

Well, if people are reading further down the page on an article that is why Blake Lively is rude, then the publication immediately knows that says, hey, this article is getting more reads than that articles, what we need are more articles like this one. And then people are reading those articles or reading more of them on Instagram or watching reels about them or TikToks about them. And then the algorithm's like, oh, you watched this TikTok, you'd like one on this same subject. And then it kind of rabbit holes you down the same subject line because the platforms want you to stay on the platform longer. The New York Times wants you to stay on the New York Times longer. I mean, you and I do long form content. We always want you to hang out longer for the full conversation. So it really does start to drive that. What I love about independent media is you can just be true to your opinion and your audience and say, hey, these are our sponsors. Sponsors. They're not here based on the topic, they're here based on the show. And we're going to talk about what we want. It's why people listen, because they want to hear what you have to say about it. And you were well ahead of the curve on this one. And I think the only one talking about this back before any of these lawsuits happened. And that's why people are tuning into your show more than they're tuning into the New York Times.

Natalie (104:00)

One thing about Nick is he is a good read of character and he, when something doesn't smell right, he. He is the first one to say it and he definitely said it back then. And a lot of people had a very strong reaction to what Nick said. But Emily, we know you have to go. This has been so insightful. We really appreciate you being able to break this down.

Nick (104:19)

Yeah, you guys are the best. Thank you. When the next lawsuit drops, you, you know where to find me because it is not going away anytime soon.

Emily (104:26)

We, we anticipate our audience hopefully hearing a lot from you on this show as we continue to cover the story. As always, Emily, can you please let our audience know can find you pay attention to all the great things you're doing when you're not on the vial files.

Nick (104:41)

Absolutely. I cover legal cases over on YouTube at the Emily D. Baker. I live stream three days a week starting in 2025. So all of the upcoming trials in 2025, from Karen Reed's retrial to Brian Cober to Corey, Corey Richards, which is like the Mormon mom poisoning of her husband. It's wild. That's going to be starting in April. So if you want to stay in the loop with all of that, the Law Nerd app, free on iOS and Android will tell you everything. I'm doing and where I am, including this episode when it goes up because that's going to go out into the app to over 100,000 long words. So come join the community. Let's talk law. Thank you guys for having me. It's great to be here.

Emily (105:19)

Thank you, Emily.

Nick (105:20)

How you break it down. Thank you all.

Emily (105:22)

We love you as well. Thanks so much. Bye.

Nick (105:24)

Happy New Year.

Natalie (105:27)

Hey music fans.

Emily (105:29)

There are some great concerts headed this way.

Nick (105:31)

Don't miss out on all the shows.

Natalie (105:33)

In your favorite venues like Deftones at Madison Square Garden, Eagles at the Sphere and Foster the people at the Ryman Auditorium. Tickets are going fast, so don't wait.

Nick (105:46)

Head to livenation.com to get your tickets.

Natalie (105:48)

Now that's livenation.com.

Emily (105:56)

It'S better over here. Now at T Mobile get four 5G phones on us and 4G lines for $25 a line per month when you switch with eligible trade ins. All on America's largest 5G network. Minimum of 4 lines for $25 per line per month with autopay discount using debit or bank account. $5 more per line without autopay plus taxes and fees and $10 device connection charge phones via 24 monthly bill credits for well qualified customers. Contact us before canceling entire account to continue build credits or credit stop and balance on a required finance agreement. Do build credits and if you pay off devices early ct mobile.com I do.

Natalie (106:26)

Have a question for you Nick though, because I feel like way back in August you were one of the only people who kind took not even Blake's side but you, you encouraged everybody to just take a beat and open their eyes to the fuller picture. And I'm curious like how you got that idea and like what?

Emily (106:45)

Well, well I'll get into that in a second. But I think what's really important, what you just pointed out is that I wasn't even taking Blake slide. I. I was, I was literally just suggesting that we like ask different questions and we shouldn't just rush, rush to condemning Blake because of old interviews. And we should consider why the entire cast was separating themselves from Justin. And we shouldn't just assume that Justin's the good guy in this narrative just because he says the right things publicly. That's all I was saying. And the entire Internet, Internet was like shut the up. But you got a lot of heat.

Natalie (107:19)

Like in the comments even on the.

Emily (107:21)

Tick tock that we posted of your take.

Natalie (107:22)

Like people were all over you just.

Emily (107:25)

Like this is a whack take.

Natalie (107:26)

This is wild.

Emily (107:27)

Like how could you say that.

Nick (107:29)

I don't agree.

Emily (107:30)

Some people would disagree. I just. I don't. I really am pretty good at being offline, so I didn't realize it was like a hundred percent was, oh, yeah, to shut the up. Like, it's. It's funny every once in a while, like, my publicist will like, well, you know, we'll have a meeting, whatever. And it's just like, I don't. I do a good job of not reading comments. And sometimes, like, I'll realize that, like, I might be catching more heat because I just remember when this came out, she's like, well, maybe we should, like, move on from, like the, you know, like the Justin and Blake story. I'm like, well, why? Why do you say that? Well, I come to find out that, like, every single person online disagreed with me. It was wild. Some of the comments that were out there, it was wild. It feels certainly good to been validated. I was right. Why did I think what I thought about Justin? I mentioned I did a TikTok a couple days ago and gave some context why I had the opinion that I had. We interviewed Justin a few years back. A lot of you guys weren't here. He was promoting his book, man enough. He gave me a weird. He honestly gave me just a really bad, bad vibe. I mentioned in that TikTok. When he came in, it was a pouring rain. He meditated in front of us. I'm a huge fan of meditation. I'm not criticizing meditation, but for me, meditation is something you do for yourself. He came in, he could have meditated in his car. He could have meditated at home. I don't know. He came in and we all sat there and waited for him to finish meditating. It was like this guy was clear. He gave off the vibe that he was performing, right? And that was just the vibe I got. I never talked about it, never spoke on it. A lot of people since then have been like, ask me who I. When. After I posted that TikTok about giving my opinion what it was like to interview Justin, it's like, well, who I was so and so. It's just like Justin is the only person we've interviewed. How many people Last year alone, 130. I don't know how many people I've interviewed over the years of doing this show. Justin Baldoni is the only person who gave me the vibe that he gave me about how disingenuous he came across. I. It's really cool. We get to meet a lot of cool people doing this show sometimes. We do become friends with them. It was so cool to meet Denise Richards, someone who, like, growing up, I was like, she is an I icon. I honestly didn't know what to expect. Denise Richards, the Bond girl, then the former housewife. I was, like, kind of nervous. What is she going to be like? She was so cool and down to earth. And, yeah, I've built a rapport with Denise Richards since then. A lot of times we interview people, they're a little nervous, you know, it's an interview, it's professional, everyone's lovely. Some people are more willing to open up than others. Some people aren't. Whatever. He was the only person who gave me this vibe. But again, I didn't really speak on it. I'm not trying to, like, I don't have people on to, you know, talk about what they were like behind their back or anything like that, but it was just a vibe I got. So when the story came out, I just knew. I'll never forget when the story broke, we were at the lake house with our friends Erica and Scott, and I was like, I just. I know there's something going on with this guy. Like, I don't buy this guy. I think he's a false prophet. I think he's a guy cosplaying as Jesus. That was just the vibe I got. And I. And I was just out there being like, I'm not so sure we should just rush to judgment about Blake. So that's why I thought what I thought. But, yeah, I think I just hope that if you're out there and you are listening to this and you were someone, and, like, this is not about, like, pointing the finger, but just ask yourself, like, what were you believing back then, you know, and why did you believe what you believed? And if you're, you know, again, this is. This is a movie about dv. This is a movie that a lot of people identified as. As past victims who saw a connection to this movie in characters. And many of those people were quick to blame Blake, the women in this scenario, and defend Justin. Over what? Over nothing.

Natalie (111:04)

I think this is so much more than a, like, believe women stance right now. It's like, there's cast and crew that have men involved who want nothing to do with Justin, who I'm. Who. Who they overheard and they saw and things made them uncomfortable. Like, this isn't just Blake Lively against Justin Baldoni. This is so many cast, so many crew, so many people involved who are like, hey, I don't like this guy. He's saying he's doing weird shit. Like, I don't want to be around him. And I think that's, like, what people need to pay attention to is, like, it wasn't just Blake Lively who was like, hey, I don't want to promote this movie with him. I don't want to stand beside him on a red carpet. It's the writer of this film who sold these rights to justice. Justin is so uncomfortable. She doesn't want to be around him. Brandon Sklenar, who plays Atlas in the film, he wants nothing to do with Justin. The actors who play Young Lily and Young Atlas, man and woman want nothing to do. This is just so, like, people are in my DMs being like, you're gonna eat your words. Like, this believe women thing, it's like, it's not about that anymore. Like, it's not about believe women because no one believes women ever. So, like, we're past that. This man has clearly made several people. People uncomfortable. Done where he hasn't asked for consent. He's added in scenes. I mean, this is a bad guy. And for people to sit here and be like, team Justin. It's not teams. Like, this is.

Nick (112:37)

It's.

Natalie (112:37)

It's black and white. This is a bad guy. This is a bad person who's done some bad things to a lot of people. And I think we just need to, like, wake up and realize that.

Emily (112:44)

Yeah. Yeah. Well said, babe.

Natalie (112:46)

It's just so important, I think, to acknowledge that no one on Justin's team, Justin himself, this Jamie guy, no one is saying that this stuff didn't happen. And I think that is the most telling part. His publicists are also in cahoots of, like, this guy's weird. This guy's cringy. This guy thinks he's all that. His own publicist, his own team are saying that about him. So this isn't like, oh, this isn't true, or that's not true. It's like, Justin isn't even saying, guys, I didn't do this. And I think that's what people need to pay attention to also.

Emily (113:20)

Again, there's still conversations about people trying to decide what they think about Blake. I think we need to give Blake a lot of credit for what she did to come forward with all this. Blake's willingness to file this complaint and to fight this battle is still going to come with a lot of criticism. It's going to cause a lot of stress on her family's life. Again, they were threatened by ability billionaire that was going to spend a hundred million dollars to destroy their family. Like, huh, that's an insane accusation. And how would you feel if that were you in your family? And people are so quick to find ways to dismiss that, you know, like, she is. Blake has really shined a light on the industry as a whole. How we look at victims, how we want to just discredit victims, that, like, we have a society where we don't want to believe, believe right and wrong. We want to believe people we agree with. We want to believe people that we think we could be friends with. And then we are so quickly to discredit people if, if other people are able to convince us that we wouldn't be friends with them. It's like, huh, like that's not how we get to the truth. We have to be willing to ask questions. We have to be critical thinkers. We actually have to consider that the person that we think reminded us of someone we went to high school with. Like, we could, they could still be right. And we, we should have pause before we rush to judgment and just condemn people because of who we think they are in public.

Natalie (114:45)

People have had experiences like this and, and feel almost embarrassed to speak about it. It's a. It's a very, like, scary thing to come forward with.

Emily (114:54)

I would imagine Blake would just want this to go away, you know, and not have this continue to be a thing that she has to deal with and she has had to make, I'm assuming, the very difficult choice to fight this. And because it's going to get in the legal system, it's going to be very public, it's going to be out there, it's going to be emotionally distressing. So again, a lot of disturbing stuff in this complaint. We highly recommend you guys read it, review it. We'll add the links to the show descriptions. I think the big takeaway too, is, you know, I think there's a lot of. With this whole, like the, the CEO, the Luigi Assassin, you know, not to get into that, but. But there's this kind of like, eat the rich mentality or mindset going around, around. And I think part of that. We were so quick to dismiss Ryan and Blake in this story because of the perception of their power and influence. You always hear the phrase there's always a bigger fish, you know, and in the story, we come to find out that there was in fact a bigger fish. This billionaire financer who was making threats and willing to invest hundreds, like a hundred million dollars to destroy a life. I think the big takeaway is we need. We should be careful not to Pick, jump to picking a side right off the bat. It's more about just asking some questions and to be allowing the information to get out, you know, And I think maybe that's the big takeaway. And for all the people, think back to August when the story came out. If you were someone who was quick to just side with Justin or want to discredit Blake because again, she reminded you of someone you went to high school with, just take a beat and ask yourself, ourselves, you know, why you came to that conclusion. Like, we. We have to stop doing stuff like this. Otherwise this stuff is just going to keep happening. It's. I think it's very brave of Blake to, like, really shed a light on the industry as a whole and hopefully a lot of good will come from it. But, like, this is obviously just getting started. Justin's team seems to be fighting back very aggressively. I mean, even Justin's lawyer is someone who, like, if you do some research, you know, Justin seems to surround himself with people, let's just say, are the opposite of athletes, allies. You know, he surrounds himself with people who have their own checkered past. And again, someone who, who. Who walks, who talks to talk like Justin talked, would never surround himself with the people that he surrounds himself with. Yeah, I think with Justin, you just got to start asking yourself, Lou, read the complaint. Just look at the behavior. Just look at the behavior of a guy, again, who casted himself. You know, is. Is this. Is this the behavior of a person who actually is an ally? Is this the behavior of a person who actually wants to platform and protect women? Is this the behavior of a man who really listens to women and really wants to understand them? Or is he using allyship and this need and desire for us to protect women as a way to abuse his power to gaslight his entire audience into thinking he's a good guy and to get away with making people feel incredibly uncomfortable. Again, we were so quick to. To, like, say that Ryan and Blake were abusing their power rule. All it was was a guy being a husband to his wife and wanting to protect his wife. Put yourself in, again, their shoes, what it would be like to show up to work and have this person do these things that he's being accused of. How would that make you feel? And having to go to work and then think of all the people in this project. People like, oh, well, why didn't she leave the set? Or why didn't she do this? They are people in incredible positions that other people really rely on them. And, like, it's not that easy just to walk off set. I mean if she would have walked, that would be all that would have been in itself. Big story.

Natalie (118:21)

But she also made a huge decision in saying, I'm not going to continue to film this if these 30 things don't get fixed.

Emily (118:30)

Yeah. And I tried to handle it.

Natalie (118:32)

I think that's telling in itself.

Emily (118:33)

Well, that is going to do it. For this episode. We obviously didn't get to Salt Lake City or Southern Charm or all the other headlines. We'll pick all that up in the New Year. There was so much obviously to cover this episode. We just wanted to focus on the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni complaint. So we will see you in the New Year Year. Thank you again for such an incredible year. This has really, truly been our best year we have ever had as a show. I truly believe that this is going to be an even bigger year for us for you guys as well. We can't thank you enough for supporting us for our show. We're going to kick things off in a big, big way starting next week. Can't wait for you guys to hear all the exciting things we have coming up in 2025. It's going to be a great year. Until then, be safe tonight. If you are celebrating this New Year's Eve, make sure you do it safely. We love you all. We see you in 2025. Bye. Hey music fans, there are some great.

Natalie (119:41)

Concerts headed this way.

Nick (119:42)

Don't miss out on all the shows.

Natalie (119:44)

In your favorite venues like Deftones at Madison Square Gardens, Eagles at the Sphere and Foster the people at the Ryman Auditorium. Tickets are going fast so don't wait.

Nick (119:57)

Head to livenation.com to get your tickets now. That's livenation.com now@t mobile get four 5G.

Emily (120:11)

Phones on us and four lines for 25 a line per month when you switch with eligible trade ins. All on America's largest 5G network. Minimum of 4 lines for 25 per line per month with auto pay discount using debit or bank account. $5 more per line without auto pay plus taxes and fees and $10 device connection charge phones via 24 monthly bill credits for well qualified customers. Contact us before canceling entire account to continue build credits or credit stop and balance on a required finance agreement due bill credits end if you pay off devices early. CT mobile.com marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom.

Nick (120:51)

Podcasts are a pretty close companion.

Emily (120:54)

And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S.

Nick (121:14)

Y N ads.com today.