Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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https://www.tmz.com/2025/05/22/taylor-swift-subpoena-withdrawn-lively-baldoni-lawsuit/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

True. I guess it wasn't technically voluntary. She had no choice really. It was either "you can willingly give us what we want and we can work out a deal where you not subjected to a subpoena with intimate questions" OR we go in front of the judge.

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https://www.tmz.com/2025/05/22/taylor-swift-subpoena-withdrawn-lively-baldoni-lawsuit/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

Also this qoute tells us she's standing firm in going against what Blake has said in interviews. Blake used her name.


Other sources, also in the know, say this "confirms the validity of the statement made last week that Taylor's involvement with this film was licensing a song

[Anonymous]

Seems like if Freedman received information from Venable corroborating in any way the info that had been in Freedman’s affidavit, THAT would have been the headline, and not “Swift was not involved in any way.”

Unless that is part of a deal Venable and Freedman made, to not depose/further bother Swift in exchange for this doc from Gottlieb or something like that, and have the headline be “Swift was not involved.”

Still don’t get why Freedman would say *the court* has these documents, as the court has nothing but Freedman’s struck pleadings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like if Freedman received information from Venable corroborating in any way the info that had been in Freedman’s affidavit, THAT would have been the headline, and not “Swift was not involved in any way.”

Unless that is part of a deal Venable and Freedman made, to not depose/further bother Swift in exchange for this doc from Gottlieb or something like that, and have the headline be “Swift was not involved.”

Still don’t get why Freedman would say *the court* has these documents, as the court has nothing but Freedman’s struck pleadings.

There’s zero reason for Freedman to telegraph to Lively team what he got. Use your common sense, assuming you have some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? If she had not handed over the info., there would be no reason to drop the subpoena. It would stay.

However, they negotiated, and as a result of their negotiations, she gave them info in exchange for them dropping the subpoena.

Pretty straightforward

[Anonymous]

Motion to Quash is withdrawn. It certainly doesn't sound (to me) like Venable actually produced anything, and they reserve their rights to object to any future subpoena if served:

COMES NOW, Movant Venable LLP (“Venable”), and submits this Notice of Withdrawal of its Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by the issuing party. In support of this Notice, Venable states as follows:

1. On May 12, 2025, Venable filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (“Motion to Quash”) issued by “Consolidated Plaintiffs Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al.” (“Wayfarer”). See Dkt. 1.

2. On May 21, 2025, counsel for Wayfarer informed Venable, verbally and in writing, that Wayfarer was withdrawing the Venable Subpoena, effectively rendering the Motion to Quash moot.

3. Accordingly, because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by Wayfarer, Venable withdraws without prejudice the Motion to Quash. Should Wayfarer serve a new subpoena on Venable in the future, Venable reserves all rights to renew its Motion to Quash (as applicable) and/or file a new motion to quash or for other relief in this Action.

WHEREFORE, because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by Wayfarer, Venable hereby withdraws its Motion to Quash the now-moot Venable Subpoena.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.10.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like if Freedman received information from Venable corroborating in any way the info that had been in Freedman’s affidavit, THAT would have been the headline, and not “Swift was not involved in any way.”

Unless that is part of a deal Venable and Freedman made, to not depose/further bother Swift in exchange for this doc from Gottlieb or something like that, and have the headline be “Swift was not involved.”

Still don’t get why Freedman would say *the court* has these documents, as the court has nothing but Freedman’s struck pleadings.

There’s zero reason for Freedman to telegraph to Lively team what he got. Use your common sense, assuming you have some.

lol, as if Freedman would not be all over a punishing headline confirming the facts of his affidavit if he could wrangle it?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash is withdrawn. It certainly doesn't sound (to me) like Venable actually produced anything, and they reserve their rights to object to any future subpoena if served:

COMES NOW, Movant Venable LLP (“Venable”), and submits this Notice of Withdrawal of its Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by the issuing party. In support of this Notice, Venable states as follows:

St Olaf?
1. On May 12, 2025, Venable filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (“Motion to Quash”) issued by “Consolidated Plaintiffs Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al.” (“Wayfarer”). See Dkt. 1.

2. On May 21, 2025, counsel for Wayfarer informed Venable, verbally and in writing, that Wayfarer was withdrawing the Venable Subpoena, effectively rendering the Motion to Quash moot.

3. Accordingly, because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by Wayfarer, Venable withdraws without prejudice the Motion to Quash. Should Wayfarer serve a new subpoena on Venable in the future, Venable reserves all rights to renew its Motion to Quash (as applicable) and/or file a new motion to quash or for other relief in this Action.

WHEREFORE, because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by Wayfarer, Venable hereby withdraws its Motion to Quash the now-moot Venable Subpoena.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.10.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash is withdrawn. It certainly doesn't sound (to me) like Venable actually produced anything, and they reserve their rights to object to any future subpoena if served:

COMES NOW, Movant Venable LLP (“Venable”), and submits this Notice of Withdrawal of its Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by the issuing party. In support of this Notice, Venable states as follows:

1. On May 12, 2025, Venable filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (“Motion to Quash”) issued by “Consolidated Plaintiffs Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al.” (“Wayfarer”). See Dkt. 1.

2. On May 21, 2025, counsel for Wayfarer informed Venable, verbally and in writing, that Wayfarer was withdrawing the Venable Subpoena, effectively rendering the Motion to Quash moot.

3. Accordingly, because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by Wayfarer, Venable withdraws without prejudice the Motion to Quash. Should Wayfarer serve a new subpoena on Venable in the future, Venable reserves all rights to renew its Motion to Quash (as applicable) and/or file a new motion to quash or for other relief in this Action.

WHEREFORE, because the Venable Subpoena has been withdrawn by Wayfarer, Venable hereby withdraws its Motion to Quash the now-moot Venable Subpoena.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.10.0.pdf

You are reaching. They got certain things by agreeing to not seek other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? If she had not handed over the info., there would be no reason to drop the subpoena. It would stay.

However, they negotiated, and as a result of their negotiations, she gave them info in exchange for them dropping the subpoena.

Pretty straightforward

The subpoena is a summons to produce documents. If someone has produced the documents, then they have fulfilled the request, so what is there to "drop?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like if Freedman received information from Venable corroborating in any way the info that had been in Freedman’s affidavit, THAT would have been the headline, and not “Swift was not involved in any way.”

Unless that is part of a deal Venable and Freedman made, to not depose/further bother Swift in exchange for this doc from Gottlieb or something like that, and have the headline be “Swift was not involved.”

Still don’t get why Freedman would say *the court* has these documents, as the court has nothing but Freedman’s struck pleadings.

There’s zero reason for Freedman to telegraph to Lively team what he got. Use your common sense, assuming you have some.

lol, as if Freedman would not be all over a punishing headline confirming the facts of his affidavit if he could wrangle it?!

You’re cute, still hasn’t hit you that both he and Taylor are sending the exact message they want. Not only does Taylor not suppprt Blake, the break is permanent and deep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? If she had not handed over the info., there would be no reason to drop the subpoena. It would stay.

However, they negotiated, and as a result of their negotiations, she gave them info in exchange for them dropping the subpoena.

Pretty straightforward

The subpoena is a summons to produce documents. If someone has produced the documents, then they have fulfilled the request, so what is there to "drop?"

Dp, are you purposefully being dense or really unable to grasp the obvious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? If she had not handed over the info., there would be no reason to drop the subpoena. It would stay.

However, they negotiated, and as a result of their negotiations, she gave them info in exchange for them dropping the subpoena.

Pretty straightforward

The subpoena is a summons to produce documents. If someone has produced the documents, then they have fulfilled the request, so what is there to "drop?"

So it doesn't go in front of the judge? Are you trolling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like if Freedman received information from Venable corroborating in any way the info that had been in Freedman’s affidavit, THAT would have been the headline, and not “Swift was not involved in any way.”

Unless that is part of a deal Venable and Freedman made, to not depose/further bother Swift in exchange for this doc from Gottlieb or something like that, and have the headline be “Swift was not involved.”

Still don’t get why Freedman would say *the court* has these documents, as the court has nothing but Freedman’s struck pleadings.

There’s zero reason for Freedman to telegraph to Lively team what he got. Use your common sense, assuming you have some.

lol, as if Freedman would not be all over a punishing headline confirming the facts of his affidavit if he could wrangle it?!

You’re cute, still hasn’t hit you that both he and Taylor are sending the exact message they want. Not only does Taylor not suppprt Blake, the break is permanent and deep.

+1 There was always a reason Taylor never said anything to support her.

[Anonymous]

is anyone else watching this spin from Arlintgon "mom"?