Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

DP, I'm kinda disappointed because I liked the idea of a new, competent female attorney coming in and setting things straight. I will reserve full judgment until we get Garafalo's response to Manatt, and Jones' response to Garafolo, and I still hope the judge calls a hearing too. But, yes, since Liner represents both Abel and Wayfarer she should have anticipated and addressed that in her motion, so that's not great.

I just posted a response to this a few comments ago - Hudson is being clever with words. She states Lively turned over docs but Garofalo wants them from Vanzan. She also is asking for more info about who is associated with Vanzan. There’s also a letter from Freedman from May 16th noting the docs from Lively related to Vanzan are missing some data.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a nice summary courtesy of Reddit

1. ⁠In the example provided, lively herself admits in her May 16th email to wayfarer that the subpoena from Jones was INCOMPLETE. There were missing attachments and missing metadata. Hence, why freedman needs to go to the source to obtain EVERYTHING that was included
2. ⁠They also want to cross reference subpoenas. Why is jones handing over a subpoena that is missing attachments? It’s not fair that wayfarer only gets to look at a peak and not the entire thing.
3. ⁠Wayfarers lawyers are also asking for additional documents outside of what was provided in this May 16 email. Why you ask? Well VANZAN issued a subpoena for breach of contract, despite Abel and Jonesworks never having a contract with VANZAN, and not being named in the active case of DOES 1-10. So, what does VANZAN know that Abel and Jones don’t, since they’ve never been in contact with one another

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

Garofalo does mention it and specifies she is looking for it to come from the direct source (Vanzan) and not indirectly from Lively. She also specified additional information that is being sought.

Here is what Garofalo's letter says in reference to Lively's production of exactly the same documents (in part) that Garofalo is asking from VanZan: "The Vanzan Subpoena opened the door for Lively to obtain the documents Jones extracted from Abel’s phone without notice to Abel or the Wayfarer Parties against whom Lively intended to use the information. Lively produced at least some of the information during discovery, confirming that the sham Vanzan Action was successful in facilitating the transfer of Abel’s data to Lively prior to the filing of Lively’s claims against Abel and the Wayfarer Parties."

This statement hides the ball that Lively produced both the subpoena and all of the documents Lively received from the subpoena to Liner Tatelmann already. "Lively produced at least some of the information during discovery" is hiding the ball that Lively already produced the subpoena and all the docs produced by Jonesworks, plain and simple.

It is clear from Lively's production letter from May that Lively's production included all the docs received from the Jones subpoena, which were what was requested by Freedman's doc requests, just as those docs were produced to her: "Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production contains a reproduction of documents that Ms. Lively received in response to a subpoena duces tecum to Jonesworks, LLC, dated October 1, 2024 (the 'Subpoena'), together with a copy of the Subpoena. Ms. Lively is reproducing the documents responsive to the Subpoena ('Jonesworks Documents') as she received them. For example, the Jonesworks Documents were produced to Ms. Lively without certain attachments and without the metadata contemplated in the subsequently negotiated Joint Stipulation on the Protocol for Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information and Hard Copy Documents, dated May 13, 2025 (Dkt. No. 212; 'ESI Stipulation'). While Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production reflects all metadata fields contemplated in the ESI Stipulation, certain of the fields are not populated because the Jonesworks Documents lacked corresponding metadata. And certain attachments are missing because the Jonesworks Documents did not include them."

The fact that Garofalo already had received the first two of the five categories of documents they had requested from both VanZan and Jones was buried and hidden in Garofalo's letter. I'm glad Lively clarified it, and it's super shady of Garofalo for doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a nice summary courtesy of Reddit

1. ⁠In the example provided, lively herself admits in her May 16th email to wayfarer that the subpoena from Jones was INCOMPLETE. There were missing attachments and missing metadata. Hence, why freedman needs to go to the source to obtain EVERYTHING that was included
2. ⁠They also want to cross reference subpoenas. Why is jones handing over a subpoena that is missing attachments? It’s not fair that wayfarer only gets to look at a peak and not the entire thing.
3. ⁠Wayfarers lawyers are also asking for additional documents outside of what was provided in this May 16 email. Why you ask? Well VANZAN issued a subpoena for breach of contract, despite Abel and Jonesworks never having a contract with VANZAN, and not being named in the active case of DOES 1-10. So, what does VANZAN know that Abel and Jones don’t, since they’ve never been in contact with one another

Just pointing out that the breach of contract VanZan could have been looking at is a potential breach of contract by Wayfarer against Lively (perhaps there is some provision in her contract for the movie that might have been breached by a smear campaign against her as the move was coming out). It still makes the VanZan lawsuit a bit sketchy, unless VanZan was the entity who contracted with Wayfarer (actors generally use loan out companies for their film contracts for tax reasons, but I don't think VanZan was Lively's loan out company, I guess I could be wrong), but there's no reason to think the VanZan lawsuit was intended to investigate the contract between Abel and Jones -- obviously it wasn't, since Lively wasn't a party to that. The VanZan lawsuit was intended to obtain evidence of wrongdoing by Wayfarere/Baldoni/Abel/TAG against Lively, and to lead to to the lawsuit Lively ultimately filed. It was never about the employment issues between Abel and Jones, it just sought to benefit from those issues by obtaining the information that Jones had pulled from Abel's phone as a result of those issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

Garofalo does mention it and specifies she is looking for it to come from the direct source (Vanzan) and not indirectly from Lively. She also specified additional information that is being sought.

Here is what Garofalo's letter says in reference to Lively's production of exactly the same documents (in part) that Garofalo is asking from VanZan: "The Vanzan Subpoena opened the door for Lively to obtain the documents Jones extracted from Abel’s phone without notice to Abel or the Wayfarer Parties against whom Lively intended to use the information. Lively produced at least some of the information during discovery, confirming that the sham Vanzan Action was successful in facilitating the transfer of Abel’s data to Lively prior to the filing of Lively’s claims against Abel and the Wayfarer Parties."

This statement hides the ball that Lively produced both the subpoena and all of the documents Lively received from the subpoena to Liner Tatelmann already. "Lively produced at least some of the information during discovery" is hiding the ball that Lively already produced the subpoena and all the docs produced by Jonesworks, plain and simple.

It is clear from Lively's production letter from May that Lively's production included all the docs received from the Jones subpoena, which were what was requested by Freedman's doc requests, just as those docs were produced to her: "Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production contains a reproduction of documents that Ms. Lively received in response to a subpoena duces tecum to Jonesworks, LLC, dated October 1, 2024 (the 'Subpoena'), together with a copy of the Subpoena. Ms. Lively is reproducing the documents responsive to the Subpoena ('Jonesworks Documents') as she received them. For example, the Jonesworks Documents were produced to Ms. Lively without certain attachments and without the metadata contemplated in the subsequently negotiated Joint Stipulation on the Protocol for Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information and Hard Copy Documents, dated May 13, 2025 (Dkt. No. 212; 'ESI Stipulation'). While Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production reflects all metadata fields contemplated in the ESI Stipulation, certain of the fields are not populated because the Jonesworks Documents lacked corresponding metadata. And certain attachments are missing because the Jonesworks Documents did not include them."

The fact that Garofalo already had received the first two of the five categories of documents they had requested from both VanZan and Jones was buried and hidden in Garofalo's letter. I'm glad Lively clarified it, and it's super shady of Garofalo for doing that.

Responding to myself to note that it seems to me that Lively has already produced all the docs received by VanZan in response to the subpoena, in whatever condition it was that they were produced by Jonesworks, missing information and all. This includes the subpoena and, if I'm understanding it correctly, all docs received by VanZan from Jonesworks in response to the subpoena.

If Garofalo wants to ask Jonesworks for their copy of the phone, or whatever -- to compare -- maybe they can do that, and that would be allowed. And if Garofalo wants to ask VanZan for those three other categories of documents, FINE, DO IT.

But what Garofalo SHOULD NOT do is ask VanZan to produce precisely the exact same documents that Lively produced, a month ago, along with three other categories of docs, and make it sound like Garofalo had not already received those docs (minus the other three categories) more than a month prior. HOW do you think this set of docs from VanZan is going to be in any way different from the set of docs that were already produced by Lively in response to a subpoena that had asked Lively for all of the docs received from Jonesworks in response to the VanZan subpoena??? It's the same doc set!

[Anonymous]

Lively has requested the same documents from probably a dozen parties, and the judge has granted her motions to compel despite that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

DP, I'm kinda disappointed because I liked the idea of a new, competent female attorney coming in and setting things straight. I will reserve full judgment until we get Garafalo's response to Manatt, and Jones' response to Garafolo, and I still hope the judge calls a hearing too. But, yes, since Liner represents both Abel and Wayfarer she should have anticipated and addressed that in her motion, so that's not great.

I just posted a response to this a few comments ago - Hudson is being clever with words. She states Lively turned over docs but Garofalo wants them from Vanzan. She also is asking for more info about who is associated with Vanzan. There’s also a letter from Freedman from May 16th noting the docs from Lively related to Vanzan are missing some data.

How on earth are the docs Lively turned over, which were all the docs received as a results of the subpoena served on Jonesworks, going to be in any way different from what VanZan would produce for the same doc set? They are the same documents. Hudson isn't being clever with words. Garofalo is absolutely obscuring the fact that she already received these docs. They were missing data because they were missing data when received, per Lively's letter included in the production.

Garofalo can ask for those other three categories of docs from VanZan, sure. But if she's going to ask for exactly the same docs she already received from Lively, except with a "from" address from VanZan, she should let the court know so that the court understands what a ridiculous ask this is.

[Anonymous]

Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

I mean surely you can see the irony of arguing what Lively produced should be assumed to be the same as Van Zan would? Because the Van Zan entity filed a complaint alleging it didn’t know who the counter parties would be when Lively herself clearly had that knowledge?

[Anonymous]

I think the MTC would be reasonable closer to the discovery deadline — they are entitled to get the dupe docs from both parties — but the day after the ESI was entered and asking for docs it already has (so doesn’t need early on in discovery for any particular reason) without acknowledging the same is bad strategy. I think non lawyers probably don’t realize just how shady a MTC is at a point in time where the docs probably could not have been physically produced pursuant to the newly agreed ESI. I think they run the risk of annoying Liman when they could have waited just a few weeks. This has to be all about affecting the news cycle (maybe they were the ones holding out on the ESI and just agreed in order to file this, in fact) and not about the substance. Hopefully it doesn’t backfire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Agree with this, but wish Garafalo had explained it that way, because her letter did give the impression they didn't have it at all. She's asking for it from 3 different sources (Lively, Vanzan, and Jones) and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for it, but obviously the response was going to be "you have it already from Lively" so that should have been explained in her letter, that she only has it from Lively, who isn't a party in either Vanzan v. Doe or Jones v. Abel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Agree with this, but wish Garafalo had explained it that way, because her letter did give the impression they didn't have it at all. She's asking for it from 3 different sources (Lively, Vanzan, and Jones) and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for it, but obviously the response was going to be "you have it already from Lively" so that should have been explained in her letter, that she only has it from Lively, who isn't a party in either Vanzan v. Doe or Jones v. Abel.

Replying to myself to say it's also not a great look for Hudson to jump in there before either Vanzan's attorney even responds to be like "oh we totally sent it you, but we're not actually the attorneys of record, we're totally the attorney for Lively who isn't Vanzan and didn't completely use Vanzan as a front just because she wanted to hide this lawsuit." IIRC Vanzan is a shipping company or something and has nothing to do with Abel or Jones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Agree with this, but wish Garafalo had explained it that way, because her letter did give the impression they didn't have it at all. She's asking for it from 3 different sources (Lively, Vanzan, and Jones) and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for it, but obviously the response was going to be "you have it already from Lively" so that should have been explained in her letter, that she only has it from Lively, who isn't a party in either Vanzan v. Doe or Jones v. Abel.

Yes. I agree with this. Just explain it better. Everyone who read Garofalo's letter interpreted it to mean Garofalo didn't even have the VanZan subpoena yet (including NAG). Something is wrong with your drafting when you leave that impression. Don't be cagey, just explain better. It's all going to come out, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

In theory, since Vanzan and Lively are different entities, Garafolo could have argued that she has no idea if Vanzan turned over everything they had to Lively, so Lively's submission doesn't satisfy her request at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a nice summary courtesy of Reddit

1. ⁠In the example provided, lively herself admits in her May 16th email to wayfarer that the subpoena from Jones was INCOMPLETE. There were missing attachments and missing metadata. Hence, why freedman needs to go to the source to obtain EVERYTHING that was included
2. ⁠They also want to cross reference subpoenas. Why is jones handing over a subpoena that is missing attachments? It’s not fair that wayfarer only gets to look at a peak and not the entire thing.
3. ⁠Wayfarers lawyers are also asking for additional documents outside of what was provided in this May 16 email. Why you ask? Well VANZAN issued a subpoena for breach of contract, despite Abel and Jonesworks never having a contract with VANZAN, and not being named in the active case of DOES 1-10. So, what does VANZAN know that Abel and Jones don’t, since they’ve never been in contact with one another

Just pointing out that the breach of contract VanZan could have been looking at is a potential breach of contract by Wayfarer against Lively (perhaps there is some provision in her contract for the movie that might have been breached by a smear campaign against her as the move was coming out). It still makes the VanZan lawsuit a bit sketchy, unless VanZan was the entity who contracted with Wayfarer (actors generally use loan out companies for their film contracts for tax reasons, but I don't think VanZan was Lively's loan out company, I guess I could be wrong), but there's no reason to think the VanZan lawsuit was intended to investigate the contract between Abel and Jones -- obviously it wasn't, since Lively wasn't a party to that. The VanZan lawsuit was intended to obtain evidence of wrongdoing by Wayfarere/Baldoni/Abel/TAG against Lively, and to lead to to the lawsuit Lively ultimately filed. It was never about the employment issues between Abel and Jones, it just sought to benefit from those issues by obtaining the information that Jones had pulled from Abel's phone as a result of those issues.

blakel is Blake's company that signed the loanout agreement. They would have been an appropriate entity to seek the breach of contract action.