Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

More from redddit

Wow even even more evidence of witness intimidation, extortion and evidence spoilation by Blake Lively and Co. First Justin and Wayfarer, then Taylor Swift and now James the reporter. I wonder how the Pro Blake people are going to deflect now, is this also a result of the smear campaign? 😅 You do something enough it's a pattern it shows your character, there was also evidence spoilation in Ryan Reynolds case, it runs in the family I guess.

[Anonymous]

^
I thought it was odd that other reporter out of nowhere posted online how nasty Leslie Sloan is and that she threatens people with made up claims. If I’m remembering correctly, she put that statement out right around the same time. I wonder if she knew what was happening with James and that’s why she tried to whistleblow herself about how Sloan operates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^
I thought it was odd that other reporter out of nowhere posted online how nasty Leslie Sloan is and that she threatens people with made up claims. If I’m remembering correctly, she put that statement out right around the same time. I wonder if she knew what was happening with James and that’s why she tried to whistleblow herself about how Sloan operates.

What statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^
I thought it was odd that other reporter out of nowhere posted online how nasty Leslie Sloan is and that she threatens people with made up claims. If I’m remembering correctly, she put that statement out right around the same time. I wonder if she knew what was happening with James and that’s why she tried to whistleblow herself about how Sloan operates.

What statement?

? The reporters post that Sloan was nasty and threatens people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^
I thought it was odd that other reporter out of nowhere posted online how nasty Leslie Sloan is and that she threatens people with made up claims. If I’m remembering correctly, she put that statement out right around the same time. I wonder if she knew what was happening with James and that’s why she tried to whistleblow herself about how Sloan operates.

What statement?

? The reporters post that Sloan was nasty and threatens people

I meant what reporter, where is the statement.

[Anonymous]

And more on this issue from Reddit Perez chat—

‘Have you forgotten already how Slone intimidated all the employees from preserve to cover up Blake’s & her brothers bad behavior?’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reviews of Blake brown products on Target are scathing. Wow

Many many like this…


Ridiculous
1 out of 5 stars
Thumbs down graphic, would not recommend
Would not recommend
RobinPacNW - 10 months ago, Verified purchaser

Not sure why I thought a B actress could develop a hair care line of products. No difference after two weeks of using this overpriced and over scented shampoo/mask in clunky oversized plastic containers. Save your money and buy elsewhere.

Will be interesting to see whether this sort of thing makes it into the damages discussion for Lively.

I know Blake has had a lot of wins but it’s going to be difficult to prove damages. I know for a fact that several beauty bloggers and industry analysts came out well before the supposed smear campaign and said there was no chance of this line succeeding. It’s excruciatingly difficult to breakthrough the market with products like this and celebrity business failures are a dime and dozen. It’s much rarer for a celebrity fashion or beauty line to actually succeed.

Oh wow. People on Reddit who claim to be Blake fans even say that her hair care line was awful. And it seems like this could be why

‘It had nothing to do with Justin. Allegedly the hair care line was created for Beyoncé and people of color, hence the bee packaging. Beyoncé turned it down for something higher quality (the line she released at Ulta) and it was optioned to Megan Markle next who also turned it down. Blake grabbed it and slapped her logo on it. Didn’t bother to change the packaging or the formula to fit the demographic she was targeting. This is why the products don’t work on all hair because it was meant for people of color and the products are cheap. This is prob why Blake wanted all BBB docs under the AEO order to hide the brand’s origins from the public.’

[Anonymous]

Looks like Judge Liman is looking at the Jed Wallace MTD/jurisdiction question. Judge has issued an order telling Lively she has until July 7 to submit an argument re ... conspiracy jurisdiction? ... that was only raised for the first time in Wallace's reply:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.379.0_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman is back, prepared to rule.

Granting motion to compel as modified:
Compeling production of docs responsive to 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Production will include responsive docs involving communications with Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, and Abel. Not limited to communications involving those docs. Rejecting Case and Koslow's arguments here.

Finding time period suggested in letter at docket 321: July 1 to March 21 2025, and production shall be limited to docs in those time period.

To the extent that docs should be limited to those in December 2024 because work stopped, Liman says this should mean there should be very few docs after December, so plaintiffs should be allowed to probe that question.

Production should be made by 5 pm on July 7 (as Lively asked).

Re cost burden, Liman orders cost sharing to following extent: Lively will cover costs identified at second bullet point of doc at docket 359-9 at page 26 (?), email from Ms. Bender from 2025. Incorporating that bullet point into order.

Anything else we need to do? Breed asks for a written record? Breed notes also that neither of their clients have received deposition notices. Liman thanks everyone.

Generally a win for Lively here, but they will need to do A LOT of quick doc review between 5pm July 7th and their dep scheduled on July 9th.

So Case and Koslow (the current and prior non-party TAG employees whose communications were just compelled by Liman during Tuesday's hearing) are apparently the two people who created a bunch of defamatory websites about Stephanie Jones? They apparently created stephaniejoneslies.com and stephaniejonesleaks.com (as well as social media accounts promoting those sites).

This was revealed yesterday in a filing yesterday by Jones, who was subpoenaing Meta etc for the identities of the people who created those sites. In a hilarious self own by Case and Koslow, Case and Koslow filed vague objections to those subpoenas, which would only have been known to them through Meta's processes for notifying the owners of the social media identities involved in promoting the sites.

Jones' motion says:

"Two non-parties, Breanna Butler Koslow and Katherine Case, also served vague objections that the Subpoenas—which seek only information regarding who created the false and abusive Facebook and Pinterest accounts and, by extension, the websites—called for their “personal information.” This could only conceivably be the case if their personal information were linked to the accounts requested by the subpoena. Ms. Koslow and Ms. Case are or have been employees of The Agency Group PR, a public relations agency run by Melissa Nathan, a party in the underlying suit who has denied knowledge of who created the profiles or websites. Ms. Case was an employee of Jonesworks prior to being hired by The Agency Group PR. Counsel for Ms. Butler and Ms. Case would not confirm or deny whether they created the profiles and websites."

Haha.

This adds some more color to the whole drama earlier this week of Case and Koslow objecting, without avail, to their communications being compelled by Lively.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.451733/gov.uscourts.cand.451733.1.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

This Vanzan thing keeps getting worse and worse for Blake. It’s pretty clear following the motions from the past few days that Blake committed fraud through her company Vanzan. Blake may have SH privilege and litigation privilege but Vanzan does not and Vanzan could be liable for damages.

Vanzan misrepresented itself to the court claiming to have a contractual relationship with does 1-10 to get Jen Abel’s texts. Those texts went directly to Blake to use in her personal case, not the case Vanzan had supposedly requested the discovery for. This would be like Tesla issuing a subpoena and handing the discovery directly to Elon Musk for a personal vendetta. Highly illegal.

WF can sue Vanzan. And frankly, if the state wanted to it could prosecute criminally. Having a shell company isn’t illegal in and of itself, but using a shell company to commit fraud is.

Wouldn’t it be the most divine karma if Vanzan were held liable for any damages Blake won from WF? It was Vanzan’s fraud that opened them up to that suit so WF could sue and say Vanzan is liable for any damages they have to pay out to Blake. It would be a big fat nothing for her in the end, even if she wins.

LLC’s are supposed to protect the individual but WF can likely pierce that protection b/c of the way in which ths LLC was misused. Blake should’ve had more separation. Blake’s personal lawyers, not Vanzan’s lawyers, issued the subpoena. And the discovery went to Blake and not Vanzan.

[Anonymous]

I guess Manatt did such good work for Vanzan that they recommended the firm to Blake!

[Anonymous]

I think the irony is that they thought it would be cleaner to just have a subpoena but that actually made a mess of it for Blake. It was supposed to protect Jones but she's probably going to be in breach of contract with Wayfarer anyway because she almost certainly was working hand in hand with Blake. She actually might have been better off just giving the texts to Blake, or even a sworn affidavit, and calling herself a whistle blower.

[Anonymous]

I don't really mind you guys going bananas with conspiracy theories for VanZan, it's one of the only things you have left at this point.

The idea that VanZan is going to somehow do a jujitsu move and get back Sarowitz all the money he is bleeding into Lively seems like a pipe dream to me, but if you want to believe in it, okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Vanzan thing keeps getting worse and worse for Blake. It’s pretty clear following the motions from the past few days that Blake committed fraud through her company Vanzan. Blake may have SH privilege and litigation privilege but Vanzan does not and Vanzan could be liable for damages.

Vanzan misrepresented itself to the court claiming to have a contractual relationship with does 1-10 to get Jen Abel’s texts. Those texts went directly to Blake to use in her personal case, not the case Vanzan had supposedly requested the discovery for. This would be like Tesla issuing a subpoena and handing the discovery directly to Elon Musk for a personal vendetta. Highly illegal.

WF can sue Vanzan. And frankly, if the state wanted to it could prosecute criminally. Having a shell company isn’t illegal in and of itself, but using a shell company to commit fraud is.

Wouldn’t it be the most divine karma if Vanzan were held liable for any damages Blake won from WF? It was Vanzan’s fraud that opened them up to that suit so WF could sue and say Vanzan is liable for any damages they have to pay out to Blake. It would be a big fat nothing for her in the end, even if she wins.

LLC’s are supposed to protect the individual but WF can likely pierce that protection b/c of the way in which ths LLC was misused. Blake should’ve had more separation. Blake’s personal lawyers, not Vanzan’s lawyers, issued the subpoena. And the discovery went to Blake and not Vanzan.

What, specifically, would Wayfarer sue Vanzan for? Like what is the cause of action? And what specific damages would they allege.

I think the biggest problem in any litigation over the Vanzan subpoena is that everything discovered via that subpoena would be discoverable in the present case anyway. You can argue that obtaining the Abel texts through Jones via the Vanzan lawsuit gave Blake a leg up on Wayfarer, and that seems unfair. Okay. but it does not appear to be illegal. And I think Liman will look at it pragmatically and ask "what did Blake get via Vanzan that she could not have gotten by just subpoenaing Jen Abel in this case? If the answer is nothing, I just don't see what kind of relief you could ask for.

If there is legal action over Vanzan, it is likely against Jones for failing to give notice to Abel or Wayfarer about disclosure of their private data. And that's *if* Abel's phone and messages as not ruled to be Jonesworks property, which is an open question still. Wayfarer may have a breach of contract claim against Jones for that disclosure, but if Jones can allege they broke their contract first by leaving Jonesworks to follow Abel, that might not matter.

It think it's a fools errand to think the Vanzan situation is ever going to yield any real wins. It was a sneaky legal tactic but it's probably not a legal liability for Blake or Vanzan (which actually is something a lot of lawyers are going to take note of because if there are no negative consequences here, expect to see this used with greater frequency in other cases).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the irony is that they thought it would be cleaner to just have a subpoena but that actually made a mess of it for Blake. It was supposed to protect Jones but she's probably going to be in breach of contract with Wayfarer anyway because she almost certainly was working hand in hand with Blake. She actually might have been better off just giving the texts to Blake, or even a sworn affidavit, and calling herself a whistle blower.

I think they needed it for the New York Times to write the story. Yes, papers write stories all the time using leaked info, but that’s usually under the moral authority and guise of public interest, like someone blowing the whistle on government corruption. Writing a story using leaked messages from a private citizen’s cellphone over a celebrity feud was probably a bridge too far, even for the nyt.