Jalain O.

BL’S LETTER RE: 47.1 1️⃣ WHAT THE LETTER IS (NOT) ABOUT This is a letter to the Court following a settlement to: — Confirm the settlement agreement & identify what remains open. — Reinforce why the remaining § 47.1 issue should be decided quickly and in @blakelively's (BL) favour. — Seek leave to submit a short supplemental brief to update the Court given developments since the original § 47.1 briefing. The “one remaining claim”: BL repeatedly narrows the dispute—everything is resolved except BL’s request for remedies under § 47.1, which the parties submitted to the Court “with no right of appeal.” 2️⃣ WHAT § 47.1 DOES (AS FRAMED BY BL) (A) THE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE BL’s letter describes § 47.1 as imposing “severe and mandatory penalties” against parties who bring unsuccessful retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment/retaliation complainants. BL highlights three elements for the privilege: — Communication regarding an incident of sexual assault/harassment/discrimination (including retaliation). — Made without malice. — Speaker had a reasonable basis to file a complaint (whether filed or not). (B) LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE & REMEDY DESIGN BL’s letter relies heavily on legislative-intent framing: — § 47.1 is designed to allow victims to share experiences with “courts, agencies, the press, and others” without fear of suit. — It aims to deter retaliatory defamation litigation by imposing “significant remedies,” and those remedies should be available at the earliest stage, “typically through a motion to dismiss,” to avoid a punishing process. FFS, “… Ms. Lively respectfully requests that her Motion be resolved as promptly as possible.” 3️⃣ LITIGATION STRATEGY (A) CHARACTERISING WAYFARER’S SUIT AS THE STATUTE’S “PROTOTYPE” BL describes explicitly that Wayfarer’s defamation case is the “prototypical suit” the legislature intended to “short circuit.” — Merits: BL argues the communications are privileged and the defamation suit should fail under § 47.1. — Remedies: It supports treating BL as the “prevailing defendant” entitled to fees and damages. FFS, “… Ms. Lively is entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also to compensatory damages tripled, and punitive damages.” (B) SATISFYING § 47.1 ELEMENTS The factual/legal bases for privilege: — Communication: Statements were related to sexual harassment/retaliation and were made in/through other privileged channels (administrative complaint; reporting). — No malice: She “genuinely believes she’s right.” — Reasonable basis: She complained in multiple ways to multiple people and to the CRD. — Protected activity stipulation: Some Wayfarer parties allegedly agreed to stipulate BL engaged in protected activity reflecting a good-faith reasonable belief. FFS, BL is lying… WF clearly stipulated that “The Wayfarer Defendants agree that FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL ONLY and with respect to the FEHA retaliation claim, the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment.” 4️⃣ PROCEDURAL REQUEST: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING & TIMING Prior briefing is “done,” but the record has evolved: BL says briefing on the § 47.1 issue was completed by Sept. 29, 2025, but BL argues the factual record developed further “up to the eve of trial,” justifying an update. What BL asks for: Leave to file a ≤ 5-page supplemental brief addressing: — Impact of the Court’s intervening rulings since the motion was filed. — Updated procedures for adjudicating compensatory/punitive damages and fees/costs. — Deadline requested: within 7 days after leave is granted. #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni

BL’S LETTER RE: 47.1 1️⃣ WHAT THE LETTER IS (NOT) ABOUT This is a letter to the Court following a settlement to: — Confirm the settlement agreement & identify what remains open. — Reinforce why the remaining § 47.1 issue should be decided quickly and in @blakelively's (BL) favour. — Seek leave to submit a short supplemental brief to update the Court given developments since the original § 47.1 briefing. The “one remaining claim”: BL repeatedly narrows the dispute—everything is resolved except BL’s request for remedies under § 47.1, which the parties submitted to the Court “with no right of appeal.” 2️⃣ WHAT § 47.1 DOES (AS FRAMED BY BL) (A) THE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE BL’s letter describes § 47.1 as imposing “severe and mandatory penalties” against parties who bring unsuccessful retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment/retaliation complainants. BL highlights three elements for the privilege: — Communication regarding an incident of sexual assault/harassment/discrimination (including retaliation). — Made without malice. — Speaker had a reasonable basis to file a complaint (whether filed or not). (B) LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE & REMEDY DESIGN BL’s letter relies heavily on legislative-intent framing: — § 47.1 is designed to allow victims to share experiences with “courts, agencies, the press, and others” without fear of suit. — It aims to deter retaliatory defamation litigation by imposing “significant remedies,” and those remedies should be available at the earliest stage, “typically through a motion to dismiss,” to avoid a punishing process. FFS, “… Ms. Lively respectfully requests that her Motion be resolved as promptly as possible.” 3️⃣ LITIGATION STRATEGY (A) CHARACTERISING WAYFARER’S SUIT AS THE STATUTE’S “PROTOTYPE” BL describes explicitly that Wayfarer’s defamation case is the “prototypical suit” the legislature intended to “short circuit.” — Merits: BL argues the communications are privileged and the defamation suit should fail under § 47.1. — Remedies: It supports treating BL as the “prevailing defendant” entitled to fees and damages. FFS, “… Ms. Lively is entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also to compensatory damages tripled, and punitive damages.” (B) SATISFYING § 47.1 ELEMENTS The factual/legal bases for privilege: — Communication: Statements were related to sexual harassment/retaliation and were made in/through other privileged channels (administrative complaint; reporting). — No malice: She “genuinely believes she’s right.” — Reasonable basis: She complained in multiple ways to multiple people and to the CRD. — Protected activity stipulation: Some Wayfarer parties allegedly agreed to stipulate BL engaged in protected activity reflecting a good-faith reasonable belief. FFS, BL is lying… WF clearly stipulated that “The Wayfarer Defendants agree that FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL ONLY and with respect to the FEHA retaliation claim, the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment.” 4️⃣ PROCEDURAL REQUEST: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING & TIMING Prior briefing is “done,” but the record has evolved: BL says briefing on the § 47.1 issue was completed by Sept. 29, 2025, but BL argues the factual record developed further “up to the eve of trial,” justifying an update. What BL asks for: Leave to file a ≤ 5-page supplemental brief addressing: — Impact of the Court’s intervening rulings since the motion was filed. — Updated procedures for adjudicating compensatory/punitive damages and fees/costs. — Deadline requested: within 7 days after leave is granted. #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni