Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

Again, just agreeing with this: if Venable had provided or had agreed to provide documents, the subpoena would not be dropped. They would have been my to Al agreement on the scope of the subpoena and the subpoena would still be in play. The motion to quash the subpoena would be dropped.

But if Freedman is dropping the subpoena itself, that suggests he’s dropping the request without having received any documents in response to it at all. Which (to me) suggests that what PO said above is true, that maybe part of what he wanted was Swift’s statement of no involvement. But to me it also suggests that he came up with nothing in terms of verifying what was in his affidavit. Because he would want the docs that backed that up, which he’d want the subpoena in place for. But if Venable told him, we don’t have that, there’s no reason for him to proceed with the subpoena, there’s nothing there. Whereas if they had something that affirmed what Freedman said, wouldn’t that something be the lead?

[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.

Again, just agreeing with this: if Venable had provided or had agreed to provide documents, the subpoena would not be dropped. They would have been my to Al agreement on the scope of the subpoena and the subpoena would still be in play. The motion to quash the subpoena would be dropped.

But if Freedman is dropping the subpoena itself, that suggests he’s dropping the request without having received any documents in response to it at all. Which (to me) suggests that what PO said above is true, that maybe part of what he wanted was Swift’s statement of no involvement. But to me it also suggests that he came up with nothing in terms of verifying what was in his affidavit. Because he would want the docs that backed that up, which he’d want the subpoena in place for. But if Venable told him, we don’t have that, there’s no reason for him to proceed with the subpoena, there’s nothing there. Whereas if they had something that affirmed what Freedman said, wouldn’t that something be the lead?

I dont think that's right. The motion to comepl the subpoena was withdrawn. There would be no need for the hearing regardless of what Taylor gave them. That doesn't indicate Taylor just gave them a statement she want involved at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Its so odd how they keep trying to blatantly mislead things when Taylor's side isn't playing along. They need to leave her alone. This doesn't help Blake’s side at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

If that’s her purpose, it would truly be ironic considering the smear campaign she has put Justin through. Which by the way has largely failed. But she sure did try.

It also seems like given the campaign that she did to sabotage the Barbie movie, it would just be the ultimate irony. And if it can be shown that she truly was trying to extort Taylor through releasing her personal info which I think at this point is true or Taylor’s people would’ve come out and said no. Either it’s true, or Taylor just hates Blake so much that she’s not defending her, either way not good for Blake

I was just going by the lawsuit, which says the motivation to sue was the 90% drop in product sales. Perhaps they were just making that up, but that seems significant to me.

I mean, it doesn’t seem like Lively ran any sort of smear campaign against Baldoni with bots and paid Reddit comments afaict. If by “smear campaign” you mean publicizing the actual texts that Baldoni and his PR reps sent around talking about the smear they wanted to run on Lively, using Baldoni and his PR reps’ own real words — I guess, but I wouldn’t call that a smear. Their reasons for wanting to smear her, and the extent to which the did smear her, are still up for discussion, but they certainly did create different plans to smear her, discussed them, and moved forward with something.

In still waiting to see what happens with Venable. Maybe it will be terrible for Lively, or maybe it will just have been a Freedman distraction from the sanctions filings. Either way, if Lively can make it through this pain cave to trial, and prove Baldoni’s smear, she will have beaten terrible odds and will be applauded. I’m not sure the guy who markets himself as a male feminist but also intentionally conducted an under the radar campaign to ruin the woman who accused him of sexual harassment, if that’s the result at trial, would get much work except from men’s rights groups going forward.

Meh, it was a lot more than that. Agreed they might not have used bots. But having Ryan Reynolds, a very powerful player in Hollywood, walk around calling you a sexual predator could definitely be in the bucket of smear campaign. And encouraging your agent to drop you fall into there as well. I want to learn more about the Liv plank deal. Ryan started a production company for her and then a few weeks later she very publicly dropped from the podcast.

Having Leslie Sloan casually mention to reporters that no one like Justin and everyone liked Blake falls in that bucket as well.

Starting a whisper campaign that Justin fat shamed you.… I don’t know. I think all of it together definitely represents a smear campaign just because bots weren’t involved.

I also wanna know what she promised the cast. Flying in Isabella and Brandon for those events on her dime, doing the sleepover with Isabella, come on. That stuff isn’t normal and there’s more that’s going to come out in trial that’s not going to look good for Blake.

Yeah, sorry not letting Blake off that easy. These people are really terrible. You can be terrible without using bots.

[Anonymous]

The denial in this thread is unreal. Taylor’s camp played ball with Baldonis team.

No, this actually isn’t code for a good BL day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The denial in this thread is unreal. Taylor’s camp played ball with Baldonis team.

No, this actually isn’t code for a good BL day.

Agree, some crazy attempts at spinning going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The denial in this thread is unreal. Taylor’s camp played ball with Baldonis team.

No, this actually isn’t code for a good BL day.

Right? I give Blake the benefit of doubt all the time but the subpeona was withdrawn because she willingly gave over things in exchange for minimal dealings with the lawsuit. He said straight up he was working with Taylor's firm to resolve the subpoena.

[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.

Again, just agreeing with this: if Venable had provided or had agreed to provide documents, the subpoena would not be dropped. They would have been my to Al agreement on the scope of the subpoena and the subpoena would still be in play. The motion to quash the subpoena would be dropped.

But if Freedman is dropping the subpoena itself, that suggests he’s dropping the request without having received any documents in response to it at all. Which (to me) suggests that what PO said above is true, that maybe part of what he wanted was Swift’s statement of no involvement. But to me it also suggests that he came up with nothing in terms of verifying what was in his affidavit. Because he would want the docs that backed that up, which he’d want the subpoena in place for. But if Venable told him, we don’t have that, there’s no reason for him to proceed with the subpoena, there’s nothing there. Whereas if they had something that affirmed what Freedman said, wouldn’t that something be the lead?

If you are an attorney, you know that they could do it either way.

Dropping the subpoena seems preferable because if the subpoena stayed in place and Venable dropped their objections, Lively might still try to intervene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The denial in this thread is unreal. Taylor’s camp played ball with Baldonis team.

No, this actually isn’t code for a good BL day.

Doesn’t the subpoena stay in place if Venable/Swift is producing documents under it? But it’s not staying in place, Freedman says it is withdrawing it/them. Doesn’t that mean Freedman is not getting any docs?

Venable and/or Swift are only going to produce docs under the terms of the ESI protocol and its confidentiality protections, which would be provided (probably to both parties if Gottlieb made a doc request for anything Freedman receives from a third party) only in response to a doc request or, if third party, a subpoena. Parties and third parties generally don’t just hand over docs outside this protocol. I am skeptical that this announcement means Venable/Swift provided any docs at all. Please explain how it could, if the subpoena is withdrawn altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The denial in this thread is unreal. Taylor’s camp played ball with Baldonis team.

No, this actually isn’t code for a good BL day.

Doesn’t the subpoena stay in place if Venable/Swift is producing documents under it? But it’s not staying in place, Freedman says it is withdrawing it/them. Doesn’t that mean Freedman is not getting any docs?

Venable and/or Swift are only going to produce docs under the terms of the ESI protocol and its confidentiality protections, which would be provided (probably to both parties if Gottlieb made a doc request for anything Freedman receives from a third party) only in response to a doc request or, if third party, a subpoena. Parties and third parties generally don’t just hand over docs outside this protocol. I am skeptical that this announcement means Venable/Swift provided any docs at all. Please explain how it could, if the subpoena is withdrawn altogether.

Documents don’t need to be produced pursuant to subpoena to be subject to the protective order.

[Anonymous]

New update from TMZ

https://www.tmz.com/2025/05/22/taylor-swift-subpoena-withdrawn-lively-baldoni-lawsuit/

Sources with direct knowledge tell us ... Baldoni's side dropped the subpoena after information was voluntarily provided to them

[Anonymous]

Also now in US

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/taylor-swift-subpoena-dropped-in-blake-lively-lawsuit-update/

A source close to the matter tells Us that the summons for Swift, 35, was dropped “because information was voluntarily provided” to Baldoni’s legal team.

[Anonymous]

And Page Six

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/22/celebrity-news/justin-baldoni-drops-taylor-swift-investigation-in-shock-move-as-blake-lively-legal-battle-rages-on/

However, a source cryptically tells us, “When information is voluntarily received, there is no need for subpoenas.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New update from TMZ

https://www.tmz.com/2025/05/22/taylor-swift-subpoena-withdrawn-lively-baldoni-lawsuit/

Sources with direct knowledge tell us ... Baldoni's side dropped the subpoena after information was voluntarily provided to them

I guess I just don't get the terminology here. If they were served a subpoena, I don't consider that voluntary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The denial in this thread is unreal. Taylor’s camp played ball with Baldonis team.

No, this actually isn’t code for a good BL day.

Doesn’t the subpoena stay in place if Venable/Swift is producing documents under it? But it’s not staying in place, Freedman says it is withdrawing it/them. Doesn’t that mean Freedman is not getting any docs?

Venable and/or Swift are only going to produce docs under the terms of the ESI protocol and its confidentiality protections, which would be provided (probably to both parties if Gottlieb made a doc request for anything Freedman receives from a third party) only in response to a doc request or, if third party, a subpoena. Parties and third parties generally don’t just hand over docs outside this protocol. I am skeptical that this announcement means Venable/Swift provided any docs at all. Please explain how it could, if the subpoena is withdrawn altogether.

No. There's no need to go in front of the judge if they got what they needed. Taylor handled over what they needed. So no motion to compel needed.