Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Also popcorn planet guy. I wonder if they have representation or if they will use Freedman like some Wayfarer employees.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/07/01/perez-hilton-candace-owens-subpoenaed-lively-baldoni-case/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake has now subpoenaed Perez Hilton and Candace Owens. Which makes me think they’ve been broadcasting accurate info.

That is a hilarious take on this but totally on brand. Lively is trying to figure out which content providers got paid or reimbursed in some way, and what sort of communications they had with Freedman who was inciting their videos. If anything, this is a signal that the content these people were providing was NOT accurate, because Lively is complaining that Freedman is contributing to the dissemination of inaccurate information about Lively. Gottlieb is trying to show that Freedman fed inflammatory and inaccurate information about Lively to Owels, Hilton, and Kelly and that they turned around and shared that bad info with their viewers.

All in all, very on brand for bullying liar Bryan Freedman, also.

[Anonymous]

Blake is so crazy.

[Anonymous]

Serious question: Could Blake subpoena commenters on social media? Like say there's someone making mean comments on Insta or Tiktok, or any of the users on r/teamjustinbaldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: Could Blake subpoena commenters on social media? Like say there's someone making mean comments on Insta or Tiktok, or any of the users on r/teamjustinbaldoni.

It wouldn't be worth the effort of tracking them down.

[Anonymous]

The extent of the fishing expedition tells me they are still flailing on fleshing out the "traceless smear campaign."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: Could Blake subpoena commenters on social media? Like say there's someone making mean comments on Insta or Tiktok, or any of the users on r/teamjustinbaldoni.

It wouldn't be worth the effort of tracking them down.

I'm getting worried because they do seem desperate enough.

[Anonymous]

Do you guys still think this goes all the way to trial?

[Anonymous]

So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

[Anonymous]

At this point, I'm just going to assume Liman will allow Blake to get Jed's client list, along with his credit card and the keys to his house since he always gives her whatever she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has now subpoenaed Perez Hilton and Candace Owens. Which makes me think they’ve been broadcasting accurate info.

That is a hilarious take on this but totally on brand. Lively is trying to figure out which content providers got paid or reimbursed in some way, and what sort of communications they had with Freedman who was inciting their videos. If anything, this is a signal that the content these people were providing was NOT accurate, because Lively is complaining that Freedman is contributing to the dissemination of inaccurate information about Lively. Gottlieb is trying to show that Freedman fed inflammatory and inaccurate information about Lively to Owels, Hilton, and Kelly and that they turned around and shared that bad info with their viewers.

All in all, very on brand for bullying liar Bryan Freedman, also.

Actually, it shows how desperate they are, and possibly even clueless that the bad person about Blake was 100% organic.

The famous interview with the baby bump, and the Swedish journalist never aired. She remembered how painful that 2016 interview was especially because of the baby bump comment and her infertility and decided to put a provocative headline about Blake and get it out cause she knew it would get hits.

I know Blake’s team desperately wants to believe that Brian Freeman, somehow crazy incompetent and on drugs, was smart enough to know that that video existed and to go to a random journalist and see if she happened to have a bad interview of a movie that totally flopped and no one saw back in 2016. But no that came about organically.

I have been reading bad press about Blake for years. The 2021 beyond the blinds on Blake actually forecasted a lot of what has come out. Including all the shady stuff with her lifestyle brand and how everyone had to sign in NDAs because the employees were sexually harassed and treated so badly. Help Blake and Ryan manipulate the price and totally covered up their affair.

The May 2024 backlash when Colleen Hoover fans saw Blake’s outfits was also totally organic. Nothing justin orchestrated. Sorry to break it to you. People have been hating her for years.

[Anonymous]

I am seeing online that the content creator subpoenas are not real and that is a fake story. Candace and Perez have denied that they have gotten subpoenaed.

Who knows what it is true at this point, but that is another side of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has now subpoenaed Perez Hilton and Candace Owens. Which makes me think they’ve been broadcasting accurate info.

That is a hilarious take on this but totally on brand. Lively is trying to figure out which content providers got paid or reimbursed in some way, and what sort of communications they had with Freedman who was inciting their videos. If anything, this is a signal that the content these people were providing was NOT accurate, because Lively is complaining that Freedman is contributing to the dissemination of inaccurate information about Lively. Gottlieb is trying to show that Freedman fed inflammatory and inaccurate information about Lively to Owels, Hilton, and Kelly and that they turned around and shared that bad info with their viewers.

All in all, very on brand for bullying liar Bryan Freedman, also.

Actually, it shows how desperate they are, and possibly even clueless that the bad person about Blake was 100% organic.

The famous interview with the baby bump, and the Swedish journalist never aired. She remembered how painful that 2016 interview was especially because of the baby bump comment and her infertility and decided to put a provocative headline about Blake and get it out cause she knew it would get hits.

I know Blake’s team desperately wants to believe that Brian Freeman, somehow crazy incompetent and on drugs, was smart enough to know that that video existed and to go to a random journalist and see if she happened to have a bad interview of a movie that totally flopped and no one saw back in 2016. But no that came about organically.

I have been reading bad press about Blake for years. The 2021 beyond the blinds on Blake actually forecasted a lot of what has come out. Including all the shady stuff with her lifestyle brand and how everyone had to sign in NDAs because the employees were sexually harassed and treated so badly. Help Blake and Ryan manipulate the price and totally covered up their affair.

The May 2024 backlash when Colleen Hoover fans saw Blake’s outfits was also totally organic. Nothing justin orchestrated. Sorry to break it to you. People have been hating her for years.

The claim that the Flaa video wasn’t even online in 2023 and must have been posted “organically” is an oft repeated lie actually.

The longer Flaa video was posted in 2016 and would have been accessible and searchable to Jed Wallace in 2023/2024, or the “team” in Florida, or whoever was conducting the smear.

Here is the Flaa video posted in 2016: https://www.tv2.no/underholdning/her-blir-tv-2s-reporter-fullstendig-satt-ut-av-frekk-og-gravid-blake-lively-28/8485945/