Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The illegal part of the Vanzan subpoena was that Vanzan had no dealings with any of the parties but alleged breach of contract and in doing so misrepresented itself and the purpose of the subpoena to the court. Vanzan also gave discovery to a non party (Blake) for use in an entirely different case. All illegal.

[Anonymous]

This will probably give the Baldoni supporters who say they know Liz Dye heart palpitations, but here is a discussion of the case and dismissal of Bldoni’s claims by Liz Dye (from the Law and Chaos podcast):

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The illegal part of the Vanzan subpoena was that Vanzan had no dealings with any of the parties but alleged breach of contract and in doing so misrepresented itself and the purpose of the subpoena to the court. Vanzan also gave discovery to a non party (Blake) for use in an entirely different case. All illegal.

Are you a lawyer? This is a weird interpretation of that subpoena.

Vanzan is some kind of pass through or loan out company for Blake and Ryan. Blake's case is strongest if it's the loan out company she used for IEWU, but there are legal arguments for using it as a proxy for her even if it's not. Blake has not contended that Vanzan is some separate corporate entity with which she has nothing to do -- the opposite, the company is listed as owned by her and Ryan. It was sneaky to use Vanzan for the subpoena, but it's yet to be shown that it was illegal -- corporate pass-throughs and closely held corps are common.

Also, the Vanzan subpoena was brought under a John Doe case, which means there were no defendants listed. The goal of a John Doe lawsuit is to help a plaintiff who believes they have been harmed but does not know by whom, to identify defendants. So there is no problem with Vanzan having "no dealings" with any of the parties -- there were no parties listed, only "John Does 1-99." This is how Doe lawsuits work. And, Blake has the argument that the subpoena in the Vanzan case successfully identified parties who she can argue harmed her, by revealing the texts from Abel's phone that appear to show a retaliatory campaign against her, and she subsequently filed a separate lawsuit against those individuals and continues to pursue that lawsuit. This is precisely what Doe lawsuits are meant to be used for. Had Lively never filed a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and related parties, you could argue that the lawsuit was a "sham" used only to get info to which she was not entitled. But since she did file a lawsuit, it appears to be a valid use of this legal maneuver.

Wayfarer can try to challenge it but I think they will lose. They can pursue action against Jones for breach of contract, but that won't touch Lively, and I don't think there is anything Wayfarer can do to get the Abel texts excluded from the Lively/Baldoni action, as they exist and are real texts and are clearly related to the underlying claims.

[Anonymous]

Ooh more sh/t posting re Blake today

Yep. 

Who’d have thought being sarcastic when asked how she’d help a DV survivor or naming a specially made cocktail from her booze line after the films abuser would piss people off? 

It just goes to show what an entitled, privileged white woman Blake is and I say this as a white woman. That her shitty behaviour all these years was just glossed over because she’s besties with Taylor and married to Deadpool. 

[Anonymous]

Vanzan filed a response. They show emails where they and Abel agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena and s thread where they planned to have another meeting but the chain stops there and they claim Abels attorneys abandoned it, and then 3 weeks later Ellyn G filed an MTC out of the blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vanzan filed a response. They show emails where they and Abel agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena and s thread where they planned to have another meeting but the chain stops there and they claim Abels attorneys abandoned it, and then 3 weeks later Ellyn G filed an MTC out of the blue.

Cue a bunch of Baldoni supporters saying that's totally normal and even bringing it up is a distraction because Lively should be in jail, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vanzan filed a response. They show emails where they and Abel agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena and s thread where they planned to have another meeting but the chain stops there and they claim Abels attorneys abandoned it, and then 3 weeks later Ellyn G filed an MTC out of the blue.

Do you have a link?

This seems to be a theme with Freedman's representation -- they engage in negotiations over discovery sporadically and sometimes go radio silent, or say one thing in a meet and confer and then suddenly file contrary arguments with the court. I am curious if this is just a litigation tactic or reflects dysfunction or infighting among the legal team. I am especially wondering if Freedman is simply getting overwhelmed with the discovery on these cases (keeping in mind he's handling both the Lively v. Baldoni case AND the Jones v. Abel case, whereas all the parties on the other side have separate counsel and in the case of Lively/Reynolds, have multiple large firms working for them) and they are dropping the ball. And if that may be why Ellyn G was brought in to help with the workload, but since she's a high level partner with her own litigation style/approach, if that may be resulting in disagreement on how to approach some of these issues, or miscommunication about strategy.

I remain confused as to why an MTC was filed before they even had agreed to methods of production. That's highly unusual and won't look good to the judge.

[Anonymous]

Link https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanzan filed a response. They show emails where they and Abel agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena and s thread where they planned to have another meeting but the chain stops there and they claim Abels attorneys abandoned it, and then 3 weeks later Ellyn G filed an MTC out of the blue.

Do you have a link?

This seems to be a theme with Freedman's representation -- they engage in negotiations over discovery sporadically and sometimes go radio silent, or say one thing in a meet and confer and then suddenly file contrary arguments with the court. I am curious if this is just a litigation tactic or reflects dysfunction or infighting among the legal team. I am especially wondering if Freedman is simply getting overwhelmed with the discovery on these cases (keeping in mind he's handling both the Lively v. Baldoni case AND the Jones v. Abel case, whereas all the parties on the other side have separate counsel and in the case of Lively/Reynolds, have multiple large firms working for them) and they are dropping the ball. And if that may be why Ellyn G was brought in to help with the workload, but since she's a high level partner with her own litigation style/approach, if that may be resulting in disagreement on how to approach some of these issues, or miscommunication about strategy.

I remain confused as to why an MTC was filed before they even had agreed to methods of production. That's highly unusual and won't look good to the judge.

DP, but here's a link to the MTC Opposition: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.73.0.pdf

Here's a link to the accompanying declaration: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.74.0.pdf

Here's a link to the attached email correspondence (now we can understand why Garofalo omitted it since she didn't really even participate in it and also just dropped all negotiations on it weeks before filing the MTC): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.74.0.pdf

Here's VanZan's objections and responses to the subpoena (apparently they subpoenad the law firm Manatt, also -- maybe trying to keep up with the subpoena to Freedman's firm): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.74.2.pdf

Here the Jones v. Abel docket generally: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The illegal part of the Vanzan subpoena was that Vanzan had no dealings with any of the parties but alleged breach of contract and in doing so misrepresented itself and the purpose of the subpoena to the court. Vanzan also gave discovery to a non party (Blake) for use in an entirely different case. All illegal.

Are you a lawyer? This is a weird interpretation of that subpoena.

Vanzan is some kind of pass through or loan out company for Blake and Ryan. Blake's case is strongest if it's the loan out company she used for IEWU, but there are legal arguments for using it as a proxy for her even if it's not. Blake has not contended that Vanzan is some separate corporate entity with which she has nothing to do -- the opposite, the company is listed as owned by her and Ryan. It was sneaky to use Vanzan for the subpoena, but it's yet to be shown that it was illegal -- corporate pass-throughs and closely held corps are common.

Also, the Vanzan subpoena was brought under a John Doe case, which means there were no defendants listed. The goal of a John Doe lawsuit is to help a plaintiff who believes they have been harmed but does not know by whom, to identify defendants. So there is no problem with Vanzan having "no dealings" with any of the parties -- there were no parties listed, only "John Does 1-99." This is how Doe lawsuits work. And, Blake has the argument that the subpoena in the Vanzan case successfully identified parties who she can argue harmed her, by revealing the texts from Abel's phone that appear to show a retaliatory campaign against her, and she subsequently filed a separate lawsuit against those individuals and continues to pursue that lawsuit. This is precisely what Doe lawsuits are meant to be used for. Had Lively never filed a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and related parties, you could argue that the lawsuit was a "sham" used only to get info to which she was not entitled. But since she did file a lawsuit, it appears to be a valid use of this legal maneuver.

Wayfarer can try to challenge it but I think they will lose. They can pursue action against Jones for breach of contract, but that won't touch Lively, and I don't think there is anything Wayfarer can do to get the Abel texts excluded from the Lively/Baldoni action, as they exist and are real texts and are clearly related to the underlying claims.

Vanzan was not used for iewu, which is why it was not known to the parties. Vanzan has never been used for anything besides ordering furniture and issuing a subpoena for Abel’s texts. Blake’s lawyers are trying to sanitize the fraud and mishandling of discovery by now making it seem as if lively herself directly issued the subpoena. That will not work but it will make it easier for WF to pierce through the protections an LLC is supposed to provide when it comes to damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The illegal part of the Vanzan subpoena was that Vanzan had no dealings with any of the parties but alleged breach of contract and in doing so misrepresented itself and the purpose of the subpoena to the court. Vanzan also gave discovery to a non party (Blake) for use in an entirely different case. All illegal.

Are you a lawyer? This is a weird interpretation of that subpoena.

Vanzan is some kind of pass through or loan out company for Blake and Ryan. Blake's case is strongest if it's the loan out company she used for IEWU, but there are legal arguments for using it as a proxy for her even if it's not. Blake has not contended that Vanzan is some separate corporate entity with which she has nothing to do -- the opposite, the company is listed as owned by her and Ryan. It was sneaky to use Vanzan for the subpoena, but it's yet to be shown that it was illegal -- corporate pass-throughs and closely held corps are common.

Also, the Vanzan subpoena was brought under a John Doe case, which means there were no defendants listed. The goal of a John Doe lawsuit is to help a plaintiff who believes they have been harmed but does not know by whom, to identify defendants. So there is no problem with Vanzan having "no dealings" with any of the parties -- there were no parties listed, only "John Does 1-99." This is how Doe lawsuits work. And, Blake has the argument that the subpoena in the Vanzan case successfully identified parties who she can argue harmed her, by revealing the texts from Abel's phone that appear to show a retaliatory campaign against her, and she subsequently filed a separate lawsuit against those individuals and continues to pursue that lawsuit. This is precisely what Doe lawsuits are meant to be used for. Had Lively never filed a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and related parties, you could argue that the lawsuit was a "sham" used only to get info to which she was not entitled. But since she did file a lawsuit, it appears to be a valid use of this legal maneuver.

Wayfarer can try to challenge it but I think they will lose. They can pursue action against Jones for breach of contract, but that won't touch Lively, and I don't think there is anything Wayfarer can do to get the Abel texts excluded from the Lively/Baldoni action, as they exist and are real texts and are clearly related to the underlying claims.

Vanzan was not used for iewu, which is why it was not known to the parties. Vanzan has never been used for anything besides ordering furniture and issuing a subpoena for Abel’s texts. Blake’s lawyers are trying to sanitize the fraud and mishandling of discovery by now making it seem as if lively herself directly issued the subpoena. That will not work but it will make it easier for WF to pierce through the protections an LLC is supposed to provide when it comes to damages.

DP, but this weird scheme is something that we should believe coming from Freedman et al, which to this point has been extremely reliable on all legal issues!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The illegal part of the Vanzan subpoena was that Vanzan had no dealings with any of the parties but alleged breach of contract and in doing so misrepresented itself and the purpose of the subpoena to the court. Vanzan also gave discovery to a non party (Blake) for use in an entirely different case. All illegal.

Are you a lawyer? This is a weird interpretation of that subpoena.

Vanzan is some kind of pass through or loan out company for Blake and Ryan. Blake's case is strongest if it's the loan out company she used for IEWU, but there are legal arguments for using it as a proxy for her even if it's not. Blake has not contended that Vanzan is some separate corporate entity with which she has nothing to do -- the opposite, the company is listed as owned by her and Ryan. It was sneaky to use Vanzan for the subpoena, but it's yet to be shown that it was illegal -- corporate pass-throughs and closely held corps are common.

Also, the Vanzan subpoena was brought under a John Doe case, which means there were no defendants listed. The goal of a John Doe lawsuit is to help a plaintiff who believes they have been harmed but does not know by whom, to identify defendants. So there is no problem with Vanzan having "no dealings" with any of the parties -- there were no parties listed, only "John Does 1-99." This is how Doe lawsuits work. And, Blake has the argument that the subpoena in the Vanzan case successfully identified parties who she can argue harmed her, by revealing the texts from Abel's phone that appear to show a retaliatory campaign against her, and she subsequently filed a separate lawsuit against those individuals and continues to pursue that lawsuit. This is precisely what Doe lawsuits are meant to be used for. Had Lively never filed a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and related parties, you could argue that the lawsuit was a "sham" used only to get info to which she was not entitled. But since she did file a lawsuit, it appears to be a valid use of this legal maneuver.

Wayfarer can try to challenge it but I think they will lose. They can pursue action against Jones for breach of contract, but that won't touch Lively, and I don't think there is anything Wayfarer can do to get the Abel texts excluded from the Lively/Baldoni action, as they exist and are real texts and are clearly related to the underlying claims.

Vanzan was not used for iewu, which is why it was not known to the parties. Vanzan has never been used for anything besides ordering furniture and issuing a subpoena for Abel’s texts. Blake’s lawyers are trying to sanitize the fraud and mishandling of discovery by now making it seem as if lively herself directly issued the subpoena. That will not work but it will make it easier for WF to pierce through the protections an LLC is supposed to provide when it comes to damages.

DP I don't know if Wayfarer can prove damages but agree with the rest. Still think it will mostly fall on Jones.

Come to think of it Abel should inquire what contracts were breached, and does Vanzan have any contract with Blake Lively or blakel involving PR or IEWU. I bet the answer is nothing. The entity on the loan out agreement is blakel.

[Anonymous]

But you guys keep falling for the Freedman Hopes and Dreams School of Legal Strategy (TM) so I guess it's pretty effective.

[Anonymous]

Like, when Kevin Fritz wrote this letter to Judge Liman in April to say that they would not be amending their complaint as promised before Judge Liman ruled on the MTDs, but if the judge decided to dismiss any of Baldoni's claims, they would surely promptly amend their complaint right after that -- don't you think Freedman should argue that this was an implied in fact contract with Judge Liman, and so Liman was obligated to allow them to amend?

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.178.0.pdf

I am pretty sure that this is correct because I got this right out of the Freedman Bag of Tricks and Schemes!

[Anonymous]

One of the two lawyers representing Van Zan is a criminal defense lawyer.