Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

DP. That's because you assume those that agree with you are normal posters, and therefore different, while the ones on the other side must be the same poster. Constantly insulting the posters and telling them they have no lives is not normal behavior either.

We don’t have to assume. Unless you think there is more than one poster dragging up three month old posts, linking endlessly to the docket, etc . . By the language of her own posts, it’s one person. She freely admits it.

PP. Yes, think that one is the same person, but I don’t think every person that is defending her from personal attacks about her age and being a cat lady are the same person, which people are implying.

Anyway, to the person posting about Shapiro, I would be open to any proof they are planting stories on Baldoni.
That wouldn't surprise me.

Why do you think Lively hired a former CIA psy ops guy to do PR for her? What’s your thought on that?

PP I think Lively is a drama queen with money to burn and therefore hires a crisis PR that would literally make a federal case of it. I would be interested to know what exactly they do for her, but I don't. The tip of the iceberg would be stuff like the time 100 award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

DP. That's because you assume those that agree with you are normal posters, and therefore different, while the ones on the other side must be the same poster. Constantly insulting the posters and telling them they have no lives is not normal behavior either.

We don’t have to assume. Unless you think there is more than one poster dragging up three month old posts, linking endlessly to the docket, etc . . By the language of her own posts, it’s one person. She freely admits it.

PP. Yes, think that one is the same person, but I don’t think every person that is defending her from personal attacks about her age and being a cat lady are the same person, which people are implying.

Anyway, to the person posting about Shapiro, I would be open to any proof they are planting stories on Baldoni.
That wouldn't surprise me.

Why do you think Lively hired a former CIA psy ops guy to do PR for her? What’s your thought on that?

PP I think Lively is a drama queen with money to burn and therefore hires a crisis PR that would literally make a federal case of it. I would be interested to know what exactly they do for her, but I don't. The tip of the iceberg would be stuff like the time 100 award.

Agree. I think the Times award (likely bought), all her orchestrated pap walks and press leaks are just the tip. It’s clear across Reddit that there’s been a great deal of inorganic content and obviously a number of us suspect it here as well. It’s fairly obvious. Ironic because the posts are often so vitriolic…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange
conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

That was me and I posted it to make a point. Often the Lively person/people claim they are just random parties, here to post (when they’re not at their law firm jobs) about these cases, read motions, research legal parties, etc etc. All in the guise of fairness and truth, so I’m just curious why not one of them (and they claimed to be multiple people) was interested in opining on that issue. Seems funny given their commitment to this case, including commenting on every peep the other sides lawyer makes. My question was ignored again and again, even though these poster(s) had time to scroll back for 30 pages and apparently have continued reading and posting since I left hours ago.

That’s some law firm job that allows so much non billable time! Wow!

So I’ll ask again…

Why do you think Lively hired a former CIA psy ops guy to do PR for her? What’s your thought on that?

I think you are talking to your own fellow Baldoni supporter?

I'm the annoying Lively supporter you hate and I responded to this already above. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find this analysis on how Nick Shapiro PR works really interesting…

Flooding and fatigue Flooding subs with low-value, off-topic, or confusing posts to dull engagement. "Flood the zone with shit" in Steve Bannon's words - a tactic with roots in Putin's propaganda.

Narrative seeding Throwaway accounts posing as "just asking questions" plant doubts or push provocative implications. Even if disproven later, the initial doubt often lingers; that said, in these subs, the tactic seems to be backfiring - users are pushing back with facts and clarity.

Disarming with agreement Watch for posters who frequently say "I agree" or mirror your language before slipping in subtle counterpoints or reframing key issues. This is a known tactic from negotiation strategy (eg Chris Voss) used to lower resistance and make opposing viewpoints seem more
palatable or trustworthy.

Sockpuppeting/fake accounts Multiple accounts simulating organic support for Blake, or infiltrating with "Justin fans" who behave irrationally or toxically, to make the movement look cult-like or unserious.

Divide and discredit Seeding debates (eg Amber Heard comparisons?) to pit us against each other. The aim is to shift focus away
from what matters and create mistrust.

Reframing the story (gaslighting) Seen especially in wider pop culture subs: "They're both toxic", "We'll never know what really happened" and "We shouldn't take sides without facts". These narratives seem neutral but quietly erode support and
clarity.

To poster above, this is what some people on Reddit posit is Nick Shapiro’s MO here. Here’s the link

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1lc8msk/pr_tactics_manipulation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf


Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

Yeah, geez lady, lighten up and let us get back to bashing our favorite punching bag!

So what are your thoughts on Lively hiring a CIA psy ops guy for her PR campaign? Nick Shapiro

Flood the zone with A.I. spam, try to juke Google, cyber-bully, present a bunch of juked inflated "data" to Blake and Ryan to demonstrate how they're "turning the tide" and winning the information war, and bill them for another couple million dollars? Rinse, repeat.

Agree with this [phone]

[Anonymous]

I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

Thanks! I had asked earlier if Lively would now subpoena Freedmans texts with DM. So I guess they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

Thanks! I had asked earlier if Lively would now subpoena Freedmans texts with DM. So I guess they are.

Seriously, that was prescient! I don't know whether they will succeed in getting this discovery. But what I appreciate about Lively's lawyers is that they do not sit on their hands when important questions are raised with them, but they figure out how to raise the issues with the respective court. Here, Lively's attys show the text from Nathan to Abel saying they will start a Signal thread between themselves and Wallace, "Just in case you need him to connect you to Bryan because they're very close" and list this as a reason why they are seeking Freedman's communications.

I think this subpoena was filed about a week after Freedman's docs were struck on the docket in Liner's case and Freedman filed his affidavit re extortion, so if this is reactionary to that, it's perhaps not so great. It's actually possible that Lively's subpoena came first, since Bender says they tried to serve Liner Freedman by email but they did not respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

Thanks! I had asked earlier if Lively would now subpoena Freedmans texts with DM. So I guess they are.

Seriously, that was prescient! I don't know whether they will succeed in getting this discovery. But what I appreciate about Lively's lawyers is that they do not sit on their hands when important questions are raised with them, but they figure out how to raise the issues with the respective court. Here, Lively's attys show the text from Nathan to Abel saying they will start a Signal thread between themselves and Wallace, "Just in case you need him to connect you to Bryan because they're very close" and list this as a reason why they are seeking Freedman's communications.

I think this subpoena was filed about a week after Freedman's docs were struck on the docket in Liner's case and Freedman filed his affidavit re extortion, so if this is reactionary to that, it's perhaps not so great. It's actually possible that Lively's subpoena came first, since Bender says they tried to serve Liner Freedman by email but they did not respond.

The question being asked by Lively's attorneys here is really, did Freedman help plan the smear campaign? And Garofalo is saying basically you can't ask us that, and our communications with the PR firms should be privileged.

[Anonymous]

Liman denied Livelys motion to compel on the independent investigation Wayfafer arranged on the workplace harassment in response to the CRD, but also says Wayfarer can't rely on it.

ORDER denying 228 Motion to Compel. Wayfarer will be precluded from relying on the current investigation in support of the relevant affirmative defense. The motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 228. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/16/2025) (ks) (Entered: 06/16/2025)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman denied Livelys motion to compel on the independent investigation Wayfafer arranged on the workplace harassment in response to the CRD, but also says Wayfarer can't rely on it.

ORDER denying 228 Motion to Compel. Wayfarer will be precluded from relying on the current investigation in support of the relevant affirmative defense. The motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 228. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/16/2025) (ks) (Entered: 06/16/2025)

That seems like a fair decision. It was always kind of silly to expect that they would share this with Lively's team as it's pretty obviously privileged. But I can understand why Lively was concerned that this would essentially be some kind of sham investigation that Wayfarer would point to and say "look, we investigated and found now SH, case closed," especially since they didn't even initiate the investigation until long after the alleged incidents and they put Lively in an impossible bind with it -- she'd already sued, so participating in the investigation could compromise her lawsuit, but not participating in it means her input will not be involved at all.

So this seems like a good decision that side steps all those issues and basically renders the investigation moot except perhaps as an internal method for Wayfarer to identify problems in their HR/training/reporting processes (which for the record I do think exist).

[Anonymous]

I really find it funny tbh that Michael Gottlieb at Willkie can represent DRAKE in one of the most notorious rap battle feuds ever, where Drake was lightly accused of being a pedophile, and yet in that case the relationship between the attorneys is nowhere near as contentious as here in this case involving a kind of mid romance/DV movie.

I’m not sure Lively should be moving to transfer this beef to SDNY, I’m not sure Liman would grant this.

This whole litigation is just so wild. I have never seen anything like this before. If Freedman is actually dirty and Gottlieb can prove it, I will be elated. But I do think the chances of this being granted are low.

[Anonymous]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.