Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they provided the information sought, how is that "dropped"? That would mean Swift responded, no?

The motion was dropped. That means yes Taylor gave them something that satisfied them

If Swift gave Freedman information that backed up his affidavit, wouldn’t that info be the headline and not the dropping of the subpoena?

Seems like if Freedman was wrong and Venable told him that, that would also cause Freedman to drop the subpoena. Say they told him, we don’t have any documents that say that. The end. Or even if Venable just didn’t play ball at all and Freedman just decided to skulk off.

I’m not saying Swift and Lively are friends or that Swift is protecting Lively. But it isn’t clear that Freedman posturing to say he got what he wanted really means he got info to confirm his affidavit when he is the one backing down on the subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they provided the information sought, how is that "dropped"? That would mean Swift responded, no?

The motion was dropped. That means yes Taylor gave them something that satisfied them

If Swift gave Freedman information that backed up his affidavit, wouldn’t that info be the headline and not the dropping of the subpoena?

Seems like if Freedman was wrong and Venable told him that, that would also cause Freedman to drop the subpoena. Say they told him, we don’t have any documents that say that. The end. Or even if Venable just didn’t play ball at all and Freedman just decided to skulk off.

I’m not saying Swift and Lively are friends or that Swift is protecting Lively. But it isn’t clear that Freedman posturing to say he got what he wanted really means he got info to confirm his affidavit when he is the one backing down on the subpoena.

Presumably you know how to read the body of the article, which includes this:

Part of the reason the summons was dropped was because details that the Bryan Freedman-represented Baldoni and crew sought were provided, I hear.
https://deadline.com/2025/05/taylor-swift-subpoena-dropped-by-justin-baldoni-1236408443/

[Anonymous]

More dropping from Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14738293/taylor-swift-red-flags-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-humiliation.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More dropping from Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14738293/taylor-swift-red-flags-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-humiliation.html

Quoting from the second link. To me, this means what they wanted was the media statement from Taylor saying she wasn't involved, and that's what they got, so they withdrew it (because it was always about headlines) without getting documents. Otherwise, if all the documents requested had been submitted, there is nothing to withdraw because they simply would have responded to the subpoena.

Quotes:
They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

'Sending a subpoena to Taylor and Taylor’s response has provided Baldoni’s team with everything that they needed. Taylor stated that she was not involved at all, and this is in stark contrast to what Lively has said.

[Anonymous]

For those too lazy to click, here’s what the Daily Mail article says:

They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

[Anonymous]

From the Daily Mail article

Headline
Taylor Swift: I wish I'd NEVER met Blake! New humiliation for Lively as singer outs the glaring 'red flags' she missed during their 10-year friendship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More dropping from Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14738293/taylor-swift-red-flags-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-humiliation.html

Of course the talentless nepo baby was using and mooching from the exponentially more talented and famous Swift. Lively was raised in Hollywood, she’s been a phony mean girl her entire life. And her mom was the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those too lazy to click, here’s what the Daily Mail article says:

They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

Sorry for the cross post. Didn’t see the other one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Daily Mail article

Headline
Taylor Swift: I wish I'd NEVER met Blake! New humiliation for Lively as singer outs the glaring 'red flags' she missed during their 10-year friendship

The whole furore has reportedly left Swift feeling 'exploited' by Lively - who the singer believes has used her name for leverage.

Then last week saw a shocking escalation, as Baldoni's legal team alleged in a court letter that, as things got ugly, the 37-year-old actress had tired to coerce Swift, 35, into publicly siding with her against Baldoni by threatening to leak years' worth of their private text exchanges.

Lively denies the allegation but the Daily Mail understands that intimate revelations about Swift's past and present romantic relationships are contained in the trove of texts.

It's perhaps little surprise then that Swift - godmother to Lively's three daughters - is said to be 'relieved' their decade-long bond is now over.

'Right now, if Taylor had one wish it would be that she never met Blake,' an insider told the Daily Mail. 'Although there have been good times during their relationship, the issues now concerning the Baldoni case have outweighed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More dropping from Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14738293/taylor-swift-red-flags-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-humiliation.html

Of course the talentless nepo baby was using and mooching from the exponentially more talented and famous Swift. Lively was raised in Hollywood, she’s been a phony mean girl her entire life. And her mom was the same.

To a Christian like Taylor, being a Godparent is a deeply meaningful thing. To Godless wicked schemers like Ryan and Blake, naming Taylor Godparent to all of their kids was just a way to sink their claws in her, namedrop her, and inevitably use her. It really underscores how evil, shameless, and Godless Ryan and Blake always have been.

[Anonymous]

The PR from Lively's team on this is so much spin. If BF dropped a subpoena it was by choice, not by force. Apparently a good negotiation was made between BF and the TS camp, not the spin that "justice has been served" from the BL camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those too lazy to click, here’s what the Daily Mail article says:

They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

Sorry for the cross post. Didn’t see the other one.

Baldoni has now withdrawn the paperwork seeking information from Swift about what she knew about former friend Lively's war with the actor - with an insider revealing the reason for the drastic move.

They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

'Sending a subpoena to Taylor and Taylor’s response has provided Baldoni’s team with everything that they needed. Taylor stated that she was not involved at all, and this is in stark contrast to what Lively has said.

'Taylor’s lack of involvement proves that Blake lied about several very important details to this case. Furthermore, the court now has information that is documented to show that Blake’s attorney’s did, in fact, threaten to leak Taylor’s private texts. This is backed up by evidence.

'Taylor was always considered to be the smoking gun in this, and everyone is extremely pleased with the end results and the information it yielded. They got exactly what they were hoping for and much more.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More dropping from Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14738293/taylor-swift-red-flags-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-humiliation.html

Quoting from the second link. To me, this means what they wanted was the media statement from Taylor saying she wasn't involved, and that's what they got, so they withdrew it (because it was always about headlines) without getting documents. Otherwise, if all the documents requested had been submitted, there is nothing to withdraw because they simply would have responded to the subpoena.

Quotes:
They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

'Sending a subpoena to Taylor and Taylor’s response has provided Baldoni’s team with everything that they needed. Taylor stated that she was not involved at all, and this is in stark contrast to what Lively has said.

Yeah, these Freedman quotes from the first link are weird and don’t at all suggest they got info he wanted to back up what he claimed in his affidavit. These quotes are about saying that Swift said she wasn’t involved and had nothing for him, so he dropped the subpoena:

“Taylor’s lack of involvement proves that Blake lied about several very important details to this case. Furthermore, the court now has information that is documented to show that Blake’s attorney’s did, in fact, threaten to leak Taylor’s private texts. This is backed up by evidence.

“'Taylor was always considered to be the smoking gun in this, and everyone is extremely pleased with the end results and the information it yielded. They got exactly what they were hoping for and much more.’ “

It sounds like the response Freedman got from Venable was, we don’t have anything like that. When Freedman says the court now has information that is documented to show Lively leaked Swift’s texts, the ONLY thing Freedman can be talking about is the affidavit that he filed that Liman struck. Nothing else — even sealed filings from Freedman — is on the docket. So he’s talking about his own dumb affidavit.

Also found it funny that Vituscka who is the subject of Gottlieb’s other motion to compel coauthored the Daily Mail article above, lol. You mad, Vituscka?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More dropping from Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14738293/taylor-swift-red-flags-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-humiliation.html

Quoting from the second link. To me, this means what they wanted was the media statement from Taylor saying she wasn't involved, and that's what they got, so they withdrew it (because it was always about headlines) without getting documents. Otherwise, if all the documents requested had been submitted, there is nothing to withdraw because they simply would have responded to the subpoena.

Quotes:
They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

'Sending a subpoena to Taylor and Taylor’s response has provided Baldoni’s team with everything that they needed. Taylor stated that she was not involved at all, and this is in stark contrast to what Lively has said.

Yeah, these Freedman quotes from the first link are weird and don’t at all suggest they got info he wanted to back up what he claimed in his affidavit. These quotes are about saying that Swift said she wasn’t involved and had nothing for him, so he dropped the subpoena:

“Taylor’s lack of involvement proves that Blake lied about several very important details to this case. Furthermore, the court now has information that is documented to show that Blake’s attorney’s did, in fact, threaten to leak Taylor’s private texts. This is backed up by evidence.

“'Taylor was always considered to be the smoking gun in this, and everyone is extremely pleased with the end results and the information it yielded. They got exactly what they were hoping for and much more.’ “

It sounds like the response Freedman got from Venable was, we don’t have anything like that. When Freedman says the court now has information that is documented to show Lively leaked Swift’s texts, the ONLY thing Freedman can be talking about is the affidavit that he filed that Liman struck. Nothing else — even sealed filings from Freedman — is on the docket. So he’s talking about his own dumb affidavit.

Also found it funny that Vituscka who is the subject of Gottlieb’s other motion to compel coauthored the Daily Mail article above, lol. You mad, Vituscka?

No, that isn’t what it sounds like at all.


Furthermore, let’s not pretend that Taylor is not actively breaking ties with Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those too lazy to click, here’s what the Daily Mail article says:

They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14740399/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-lawsuit-update-friendship.html

Sorry for the cross post. Didn’t see the other one.

Baldoni has now withdrawn the paperwork seeking information from Swift about what she knew about former friend Lively's war with the actor - with an insider revealing the reason for the drastic move.

They said: ‘Justin Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dropped the request for the subpoena and the reason for doing this is very simple, They got exactly what they were seeking.

'Sending a subpoena to Taylor and Taylor’s response has provided Baldoni’s team with everything that they needed. Taylor stated that she was not involved at all, and this is in stark contrast to what Lively has said.

'Taylor’s lack of involvement proves that Blake lied about several very important details to this case. Furthermore, the court now has information that is documented to show that Blake’s attorney’s did, in fact, threaten to leak Taylor’s private texts. This is backed up by evidence.

'Taylor was always considered to be the smoking gun in this, and everyone is extremely pleased with the end results and the information it yielded. They got exactly what they were hoping for and much more.’

This is the money quote.