u/Fantastic-Prize-4669

Transcript can be found: https://penpres.com/article/attorney-for-justin-baldoni-and-the-wayfarer-parties-kevin-fritz-speaks-with-court-of-random-opinion-lauren

https://preview.redd.it/s2pf0ajumzzg1.png?width=3600&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca4cc17715e58a9b0a7cf34bb89ccc69351b682e

 

⟡

Key points

1. The settlement was a clear win 
The settlement is a win for Justin and the other Wayfarer Parties as $0 of the $300M Blake Lively sought was awarded. They got the very same result they would have gotten had they been 100% successful at trial. The settlement allowed them to reach the best possible trial outcome without the risk. 

To recap, here is what happened over the course of the case. Blake Lively voluntarily dismissed her two (2) emotional distress claims when asked for medical records. Judge Liman then dismissed 10 claims at summary judgement. And this week Blake called Freedman’s office out of the blue saying they need to immediately go to a private mediation, and she want to get this settled immediately and voluntarily withdraw the remaining three claims against business entities. She was the one who reached out to Freedman out of the blue. 

 

2. Having no NDA is highly unusual but transparency was always their goal.
Yes, again, as previously told, the settlement contains no non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality clause, which while very unusual and absolutely not the norm was important to Justin and the others. They have always wanted to be transparent and tell the public the truth.

 

3. The media strategy was intentional and effective
The public release of text messages and emails helped with shifting public opinion overwhelmingly in favor of the Wayfarer Parties. Fritz acknowledges that content creators like Not Actually Golden, Little Girl Attorney and Lauren helped explain the legal  proceedings in accessible language and offered insights which he personally found helpful.

 

4. The content creator subpoenas were unprecedented
Blake Lively issued approximately 100 subpoenas to content creators and others. Fritz says he has never seen anything like it in his career and didn't understand the strategic benefit of pissing off people who were writing about the case. He just can’t quite get the strategic logic of that act. Same here Fritz, same here. 

 

5. Attacks on Bryan Freedman were abnormal
In hundreds of cases he has worked on, he has never seen the volume or severity of personal attacks on opposing counsel that Freedman had to endure throughout this ordeal. He notes that isn’t it ironic that Blake tried to muzzle Freedman from speaking and publicly defending his clients, while her attorneys were running up and around the gasket doing the same (paraphrasing here and use of words are mine). It’s hypocritical for Blake Lively’s lawyers to be doing the very same thing they accused Freedman of doing. Ain’t that a word?

 

6. Vanzan lawsuit was a procedural end-run
Fritz calls Vanzan lawsuit unprecedented in his 20+ years of practice. He believes its sole purpose was to serve subpoenas (particularly targeting Jennifer Abel's communications) without giving proper notice to the affected parties. Here he thanks the public for helping to uncover this maneuver. 

 

7. The case isn't fully over
There is still Blake’s Rule 47.1 motion, Jen Abel’s third-party claim against Jonesworks in the consolidated case, and Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel (a separate lawsuit, which has a conference scheduled for August 2026). Fritz emphasizes that Jen still deserves public support so please show up for her like you did for Justin. She had her privacy violently violated in the most disgusting way possible. 

 

8. They had minimal concerns about the jury
They were worried about there been a possibility they couldn’t have seated an unbiased jury. The Southern District of New York is large enough that many people had never heard of either party. He found it strange that Blake and her lawyers were raising the idea of the jurors being "passive participants in the smear campaign." Like, seriously? 

 

9. It’s important that we know there is a human cost to a case like this
There are five people Blake decide to ruin willy nilly. Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, and Steve Sarowitz had their lives affected for 18 months. More than half of them weren't even on set.

Yet, she waged a most disgusting smear campaign on them (my words). She doxxed Justin’s house address which resulted in him moving and Steve Sarowitz had an arsonist on his property as a result of this case. So, they had to deal with safety concerns amidst the emotional toll of prolonged litigation.

So, while we think they should have not settled and gone to trial, put that in mind and remember that they got the very same result with the settlement they would have gotten at trial if they had been 100% successful. For me, it does put things in context. Not sure about you. 

 

10. Why not go to trial?
Following up on the previous point, the reason is simple: they achieved the same result without the risk, cost, and emotional toll on their clients. He understands the public appetite for a trial and the need to see justice but: 

-      Wayfarer Parties bore the emotional and financial burden, not the public; 

-      There was always inherent uncertainty with a jury; 

-      The settlement achieved the same result as a best-case trial verdict; and 

-      Everyone was ready to move on