Baldoni’s Smoking Gun Against Blake Lively & The New York Times

[Source: Popcorned Planet]

Celebrity lawyer and legal analyst Christopher C. Melcher, who is ranked as a best family law attorney in California, reveals Justin Baldoni‘s smoking gun in his defamation case against Blake Lively and The New York Times.

Andy Signore : This just in Justin B’s team has issued a response and opposition to dismiss the New York Times and there is a bit of a smoking gun. Celebrity lawyer and legal analyst Christopher C. Melcher is here to break it down. Welcome to Popcorned Planet. I’m Andy Signore, so glad to have Mr. Christopher C. Melcher back.

Christopher C. Melcher (00:20):

How you doing, sir? Doing really good. It’s been a little bit since I’ve been on the show, so I’m really happy to be back.

Andy Signore (00:27):

Yeah. Well, I got to see you last week. Thanks again for doing the documentary. We got to film in your office. It was so much fun and we had so many amazing people, including Christopher. So stay tuned support on Patreon if you haven’t already, because it’s going to be good after you got to see some of it too. It is coming together really well. A lot of really good experts. So glad to have you in that and glad to have you back and thank you for taking time this morning to go through this motion. Now look, we talked about it even when we were filming the documentary. We’ve talked about it. This lawsuit against The New York Times is hard. It’s very hard to win these types of lawsuits, but what’s interesting is his response there is a mention of a video in tandem with the release of the article… Here is the clip in question video

Megan Twohey (01:13): …On Friday…

Andy Signore (01:17): …This was part of the article I paid for The New York Times. It’s not showing up right now and we’re trying to tape quickly, but in there I can verify there was a video that Megan Twohey edited. So not only Chris did they compile a massive article with all the texts and all the research. They went and edited a video as well, all within 24 hours…

Megan Twohey (01:35): …And other documents. Here’s that video that we’ve obtained, reveal what really happened, a campaign to tarnish Lively after she alleged that Justin Baldoni, her co-star and director and Jamie Heath, the producer, had engaged in misconduct while shooting the film.

Andy Signore (01:56): Now again, keyword there, the alleged smear campaign, but listen to what Megan herself, the author says,

Megan Twohey (02:01): In a legal complaint Lively filed on Friday, private text messages and other documents that we’ve obtained reveal what really happened.

Andy Signore (02:11): So right there, Chris, that’s not an opinion. Maybe that’s not what really happened. Now, is that going to be problematic for them moving forward?

Christopher C. Melcher (02:21): Well, it’s significant. So in the United States where this lawsuit is pending, it’s very difficult to sue a journalist media outlet because we have this first Amendment protection for the press, and that’s super important because powerful people would be able to destroy a journalist or media outlet by suing them for defamation or libel and keep them from reporting the truth. And so we have given, as a matter of policy, massive protections for the media and other journalists to fairly comment on stories that have not been proven to be true yet or not. So we can get this word out here now… And that’s what The New York Times is coming back and saying, “look, we are not Blake Lively. We’re not the ones making the allegation. We’re just fairly reporting on what Blake is suing Justin and Wayfair for.” And if that’s all they did, they would be absolutely protected.

The New York Times Mistake

(03:30): But that’s not what happened. According to this video that we’re seeing that clip, they’re going and vouching for the story. That’s where they made the mistake.

If they would’ve said, Blake alleges that, or according to Blake, blah, blah, blah, this happened, they’d be protected. But they said, and her title is investigative journalist. So she’s an investigative journalist for The New York Times. That is implying that she’s done an investigation. She’s actually looked in this, we can trust her. We can trust The New York Times. We’ve done their vetting. That’s the representation Impliedly, it’s being made. And she’s saying, yes, there’s a lawsuit by Blake, but The New York Times have looked into it and this is what really happened. So now they’re stating as a fact, not as an opinion that this happened and that’s how they’re going to get into trouble.

Andy Signore (04:25):

Yeah, sorry, the clips, I’m having trouble. For some reason X has some issues… But yeah, I mean it’s coming from her own mouth. This is the problem, right? They say on the screen, oh, it’s alleged smear, but hearing the investigative journalist, the person who’s writing this expertly say, no, this is what really happened. We have all the texts, which now we even question did they have all the texts? How do you have some of the texts and reveal some of them… and then say you have all of the texts. It does seem incredibly dangerous as they go in and sort of report in their statement in this full opposition. Yeah, they published the story, we can bury anyone. But along with the article, the video featured The New York Times journalist, Megan Twohey who co-wrote it with these others, permitting to tell the world what really happened, specifically that Wayfair orchestrated retaliatory campaign to tarnish Lively after she alleged that Baldoni and Heath engaged in misconduct.

(05:14):

The article and video echoed and compounded the baseless accusations made by Lively and her co-defendants about Wayfair and falsely accused him of having waged a smear campaign against Lively. The press enjoys the fair report privilege when faithfully relying the contents of a filed complaint. But that is not what The New York Times did. It admittedly based its article and video on its reporter’s review of thousands of pages of documents and expressly credited Lively’s claims framing them as having been verified by The New York Times on investigation and doing so. They forfeited the fair report privilege. Do you agree with that? Is that a fair argument?

Fair Reporting Privilege Defense

Christopher C. Melcher (05:46): Absolutely, I absolutely agree with it. And we also have to understand where we’re at or where this lawsuit is at. It’s at the beginning stages. So Justin has sued The New York Times and others, The New York Times has come back and said, “look, even if everything he said about us is true, it does not amount to a legal cause of action. Okay? So that’s the motion to dismiss. Even if everything he said about us is true and we’re proven to a jury, we could not be held liable for it because we’re a journalistic outlet and we have this fair reporting privilege and other defenses that we’re raising.”

So that’s the test that the judge has to apply and we assume the truth of the allegations when we’re ruling on a motion to dismiss. So this is not the trial, so it’s not like what actually happened. It’s did Justin plead or assert enough allegations against The New York Times if proven to be true at trial would amount to a legal cause of action for damages against them? Absolutely. I think he’s overcome that defense of fair reporting, so he’s going to survive on that one.

Andy Signore (06:53):

Then we have this other issue that the salacious article and video, well before Twohey contacted Wayfair the night before publication for fact checking after The New York Times had months of plotting with Lively’s partners. The Wayfair parties got hours to respond. I guess. Is that okay? It doesn’t seem okay to me if they’re supposed to be the best of journalism, right? But if they had just said, it’s the opinion, would this have mattered? Will this factor in the fact that they did seemingly have this for months due to the metadata and things that we’re seeing?

Christopher C. Melcher (07:26):

Well, this goes to the second complaint that he has against them or cause of action, which is for breaching a promise. And so clearly The New York Times, according to even to that clip, they investigated, they spent a lot of time, they vouched for these claims. They approached Justin and Wayfair on the evening of December 20th. So five days before Christmas, it’s the first time he’s being contacted by the media and they’re saying, “Hey, we’re running a story tomorrow at noon, and we’d like your comment on that. “

Media’s Unfair Response Time Tactics

(08:04):You and I have dealt with stuff like this before. This is a common tactic by the media, and they’re not really doing it with any expectation of getting a response from the subject or target of their story. What they’re trying to do is protect themselves legally by saying, Hey, we reached out. So you’ll see these stories and start looking at these If you follow mainstream media.

(08:28):

You’ll see a hit piece or a story that’s really negative against somebody, and it’ll always say, we reached out to the representatives of this person or this person directly, and we did not receive a response as the date of the printing of the story. What they leave out is it was like an hour ago, they picked up the phone and so now they’re saying like, “Hey, we tried to fact check. We gave you the opportunity. Oh, you didn’t respond. Oh, if you would’ve responded, we would’ve maybe thought of things differently, but hey, we just went with what we had so we can’t be sued.” So this is what they’re doing. The reason why they want to do this so quickly is that they don’t want the target to come over the top with their own article, with their own aligned media outlet, which all exists, right?

(09:11):

So Blake Lively’s aligned with The New York Times. Justin and Wayfair might’ve aligned with another media outlet, run and got their own story out there- beat The New York Times to the punch. They never want that happening. So that’s why they don’t give the target any meaningful opportunity to do it. So here’s why he’s suing them.

It’s super creative. They said, evening of December 20th, “Hey Justin, here’s all this horrible stuff we’re going to print about you. You have until tomorrow at noon. We’d love to hear your response. “

(09:38):

He engages with them. He says, okay, here is some information. I think he gave it to them on the morning of the 21st. Here’s some partial information. I’m still working on it. I’m going to get the rest of this information or whatever before noon and The New York Times prints a story prior to noon with the partial information, and my guess is they were worried another outlet was going to hit this story.

Baldoni’s Creative Claim Against NYT

So what he’s saying is that, “Hey, we had a promise here together that you were going to give me till noon. I said, okay, I was cooperating with you. You ran the story before noon without my complete information, and therefore you didn’t vet this properly and you broke our promise.” Super creative claim.

Andy Signore (10:19):

Well, it’s true because even if you have until noon that you’d think they’d still take time to put his responses in the article, right? And instead they just released it a couple hours earlier. One more thing while we have you on this just because I don’t want to take this too long, but they’re bringing up the whole California versus New York, and they’re arguing that California’s tort claims, etcetera, damages in California are different because all make their personal professional homes. They may make claims in California. So they’re basically using this, you guys can pause and read this more specific to get the nitty gritty, but clearly they’re trying to change where it goes. What is your thoughts on that, since this is in New York, is the fact that they live in California and California has these rights, will that help them too?

Christopher C. Melcher (10:57):

Yeah. So the cases pending in New York, but what Justin is saying is that California substantive law should apply on this placing somebody in a false light. So California recognizes a claim for damages or for money for placing somebody in a false light. New York doesn’t have that same law. What Justin, I think is correctly saying is, is that, “Hey, I’m a California guy. My company I guess is California. All these other people are in California. You, The New York Times based in New York, knew that publishing this story would impact me and others in California. So you reached out and touched this in California. So now California law applies.

Andy Signore (11:39):

Interesting. So I guess I know previously we talked about how hard this case is. Does this give you pause now to think maybe they do have a shot?

Christopher C. Melcher (11:46):

Yeah, I think it’s extraordinarily difficult to sue a media outlet and be successful. Most of these are done just for press. Like, oh, I’m suing The New York Times for all this money, and they end up getting devastated here. I think he has a pathway, and even if it doesn’t succeed, meaning he doesn’t get to a jury or a jury says, “Hey, I’m going to give you a dollar or something like that.”

Baldoni Exposing One-Sided Journalism

I like that he’s exposing this because we hope that journalists would actually investigate completely. We hope that journalists would give each side a fair chance rather than smearing and destroying one side on partial information, or even worse, because they’re biased against that person. So I like that he’s exposing this.

Andy Signore (12:28):

Well, and the irony of the title, right, Chris? We can bury anyone inside the Hollywood smear machine. The hypocrisy that Blake and The New York Times were doing the same exact thing. I mean, that’s hard to ignore, no?

Christopher C. Melcher (12:40):

Well, that’s classic projection, and we saw that in Depp v. Heard. There’s so many parallels. So the projection technique is the abusive person, the aggressor who’s taking advantage of this weaker party will project all of that onto the victim. So they’ll say, “no, I’m not the aggressor, I’m the victim. Johnny is the aggressor. Baldoni, he’s the bad guy.” So whatever she did, she accuses him of very effective, very difficult to dismantle, but he’s doing a great job of it.

Andy Signore (13:14):

You guys can follow Chris on Twitter at @CA_Divorce. He is a partner of Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP, which is ranked as a best family law firm in Los Angeles, California. Always a pleasure having you. Thanks for being here. So early guys. Make sure, give him a follow.