Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

It’s just truly nuts that Blake supporters can’t fathom someone would hate a racist, plantation-loving, talentless actress to the point that they believe all activity against her was inorganic and that everyone should have their rights stomped on. They’ve truly lost the plot, this is the point of no return for them. I cannot imagine having that big of a parasocial relationship with an “actress” that I’d defend them to these lengths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

No one said she was seeking their identities to expose them, but that there's a reasonable chance they will be exposed due to lack of redaction. This could happen whether they were involved in the smear or not. They can't file a motion to quash anonymously so by even attempting to assert their rights they may get doxxed in the process even if they are totally innocent. You seem to be operating under the idea these are people that did something wrong because they talked bad about Lively so they deserve whatever happens.

I was fully in agreement with NYT being dismissed. Do you ever disagree with Lively's side on anything?

You are assuming these people posted lies but that's not even the allegation. The smear campaign also consists of boosting "negative content" about Lively, even if it is true. The Flaa interview is real, and the texts also discussed circulating other stories from the past about Lively being difficult to work with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

You are posting your speculation as fact. Several of the content creators did not start posting about the case until 2025. There has been no explanation by Lively’s team of the reasons.

[Anonymous]

Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

That’s on brand for this particular poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Truly. Truly. The Blake supporters in this thread are getting out of hand. There was that moronic "Liman didn't offer anything because Gottlieb didn't accept it" claim, and now "To avoid getting subpoeaned and having your information exposed, all you have to do is expose that information yourself."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

I trust that Time 100 luminary Blake Lively will be an appropriate steward of any PII.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

You are posting your speculation as fact. Several of the content creators did not start posting about the case until 2025. There has been no explanation by Lively’s team of the reasons.

2025 is within the time frame that Lively's team is looking at, as outlined in their complaint and in other discovery requests. They are not required to explain their reasons to the general public, but they will be required to explain their reasons to the subpoenaed entity (here, Google and X) and the lawyers for those entities can make objections as to relevancy if they wish.

Yes I am speculating as to Lively's team's thinking but so are others. But I'm not speculating about the kind of financial info being sought -- they are only looking to identify these creators through their platforms, and thus the only financial info they can possibly be requesting is bank account info linked to transactions with the platforms. If Lively was pursuing other banking info like financial records, transaction records, etc., she'd have to subpoena the banks of the creators directly. Google and X don't even have this information. Also, she'd have to explain why she wanted it and be able to show a high degree of relevance because of the sensitivity of the info sought. Whereas asking for subscriber info that helps identify the legal name on an account, where Google or X could easily redact actual bank account numbers, is much less sensitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

Learn to read. No one suggested voluntarily giving financial info. The suggestion was that if you don't want your subscriber transaction being used to identify you, you could just provide your NAME to Lively's team so they know who you are. The whole point would be to keep your financial info out of it -- they couldn't justify asking for the financial info if you've already said "Hi I'm Joe Smith and I own the account @blakelivelyistheantichrist on X and I am the only person who posts to that account."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

[Anonymous]

Sigh, once again JB supporters are misinterpreting Blake's legal strategies and creating these doomsday scenarios.

These creators are *not* giving up sensitive, financial information. Blake's lawyers are just trying to find any transactional links between them and Wallace to show proof of a smear campaign. It's completely relevant to this case!

And if these creators didn't have any contact with Wallace, they have nothing to work with. It's very easy to clear up that information.

I have no doubt that Wallace/team JB could have continued interacting with these creators and supplied them with who knows what even after the NYT article dropped. All the more reason they probably engaged with them.















-----------------

LMFAO JK. I impersonated a BL supporter. How did I do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

You are posting your speculation as fact. Several of the content creators did not start posting about the case until 2025. There has been no explanation by Lively’s team of the reasons.

2025 is within the time frame that Lively's team is looking at, as outlined in their complaint and in other discovery requests. They are not required to explain their reasons to the general public, but they will be required to explain their reasons to the subpoenaed entity (here, Google and X) and the lawyers for those entities can make objections as to relevancy if they wish.

Yes I am speculating as to Lively's team's thinking but so are others. But I'm not speculating about the kind of financial info being sought -- they are only looking to identify these creators through their platforms, and thus the only financial info they can possibly be requesting is bank account info linked to transactions with the platforms. If Lively was pursuing other banking info like financial records, transaction records, etc., she'd have to subpoena the banks of the creators directly. Google and X don't even have this information. Also, she'd have to explain why she wanted it and be able to show a high degree of relevance because of the sensitivity of the info sought. Whereas asking for subscriber info that helps identify the legal name on an account, where Google or X could easily redact actual bank account numbers, is much less sensitive.

This will all come to light when the content creators file MTQ. Let’s see what legitimate basis she has for requesting this type of info from so many people.