Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

I don't understand why they didn't attempt to serve her at her office or on Wayfarer's counsel. They posted two requests for alternative service today and they were both over a 9 day or so period in late June/early July. They could have been on vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letter from Lauren/Court of Random Opinion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.444.0.pdf

Letter from Kassidy O'Connell's manager
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.445.0_1.pdf

They may not be perfect letters but they got the main points across well. Kassidy is much snarkier and plans to file a bar complaint against Hudson.

These subpoena responses are going to be a nightmare for Liman. I also think it appropriate to file a complaint against Esra for lying about the subpoena, lawyers have an ethical duty to treat unrepresented parties with a higher degree of care.

The pro se parties should be given wide latitude, agreed. I feel bad that one wanted their name redacted and literally wrote "please redact here" with an arrow and the court did not redact their name. I wish a clerk would have called them or something. They just didn't know the proper technical procedure for first filing a motion to seal, etc (and I'm not sure you can even do that anonymously so it's a mess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

I don't understand why they didn't attempt to serve her at her office or on Wayfarer's counsel. They posted two requests for alternative service today and they were both over a 9 day or so period in late June/early July. They could have been on vacation.

They did attempt to serve Wayfarer's counsel as well as Barnes Slaters' counsel:

"In addition to the nine attempts to personally serve Ms. Barnes Slater, Ms. Lively contacted counsel for the Wayfarer Parties to determine whether they do or would be representing Ms. Barnes Slater in this matter and would be willing to accept service via email. Counsel for the Wayfarer Parties advised that they do not represent Ms. Barnes Slater, and other counsel did not respond."

I don't know why they didn't attempt to serve her at Wayfarer's offices. Perhaps she works from home? I don't know but this number of alternative service requests is odd to me, especially for employees of the defendant corp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

I don't understand why they didn't attempt to serve her at her office or on Wayfarer's counsel. They posted two requests for alternative service today and they were both over a 9 day or so period in late June/early July. They could have been on vacation.

They did attempt to serve Wayfarer's counsel as well as Barnes Slaters' counsel:

"In addition to the nine attempts to personally serve Ms. Barnes Slater, Ms. Lively contacted counsel for the Wayfarer Parties to determine whether they do or would be representing Ms. Barnes Slater in this matter and would be willing to accept service via email. Counsel for the Wayfarer Parties advised that they do not represent Ms. Barnes Slater, and other counsel did not respond."

I don't know why they didn't attempt to serve her at Wayfarer's offices. Perhaps she works from home? I don't know but this number of alternative service requests is odd to me, especially for employees of the defendant corp.

I saw that but was thinking in terms of Wayfarer's general counsel, not necessarily their attorneys in this litigation which is what I think that paragraph is referring to. But yes, it's all very odd.

[Anonymous]

Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

[Anonymous]

From Lively's request to de-designate TAG's disclosure of CCs as AEO:

After TAG was ordered to respond to the Interrogatories (see Dkt. No. 355), TAG supplemented its responses, identifying a number of individuals who have spoken publicly about Ms. Lively and this lawsuit, apparently at the behest of TAG and the other Wayfarer Defendants. See Roeser Decl., Ex. 1. Despite the factual nature of this information, TAG unilaterally designated its responses as confidential and “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” thus obscuring TAG as the source of this information, and allowing the Wayfarer Defendants to once again recast Ms. Lively as the aggressor in pursuing subsequent discovery (which is exactly what has transpired)."

And:

"Moreover, these mis-designations are having very real impacts. For example, if Ms. Lively
issues subpoenas related to individuals identified in TAG’s Interrogatory Responses to marshal evidence about their involvement in the “smear campaign,” she will be hindered in her ability to meet and confer or respond to questions, and will be unable to explain to such subpoenaed parties that the discovery directed towards them is based in part on the fact that TAG identified them. Content creators who have been the subject of discovery have already painted Ms. Lively as the the aggressor in this lawsuit and have drawn a false equivalency between her discovery efforts and the Wayfarer Parties’ alleged smear campaign. One subpoenaed content creator even went so far as to record a call with a receptionist from Ms. Lively’s attorney’s office without express consent and then posted the recording on YouTube. 4 See Popcorned Planet, ITS REAL!? We Called Blake Lively’s Lawyers - THEY LIED TO US!?, YouTube (July 11, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch app=desktop&v=Rzen-Sa8e40&feature=youtu.be. This content creator further used the recording to make false, inflammatory remarks about Ms. Lively and her counsel, and is seeking to fundraise based on the recording and his remarks. See id. The bottom line is that the concern about being hamstrung in being able to tie her discovery to the Wayfarer Parties’ discovery responses further exacerbates public backlash against Ms. Lively, which she should not have to endure when there is no conceivable privacy interest that TAG and others are protecting."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

You are confusing posters again. But you sound super nice!

She can’t be, there can’t be two of you so disconnected from reality.

DP. +1000000

I haven’t posted in awhile and it’s depressing to see she’s still at it.

I used to think there were two nut job BL posters but now I’m convinced it’s mostly this inane lying liar lady. And every single time someone calls her out, she responds something like,

‘Wut? You’re confusing posters again. You know there’s more than one of us who support Blake’

Next post (from her obviously) will be 8 paragraphs of gibberish theory/analysis or some unhinged angry post about Freedman.

8 paragraphs of gibberish. Dying and so true 🤣

Or five sequential posts about how she is always right, because like a stopped clock, she picks Blake to win every motion.

lol and here she goes … she’s back to her multi paragraph post after post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

[Anonymous]

The interrogatory was poorly drafted from the get go and Liman should have insisted on more clear language. Notably nothing in the interrogatory relates to payment but it does include indirect contacts, which could be as simply as a TAG employee liking a post. More than one of us had issues with the interrogatory language from the get go, and Liman’s affinity for just giving Gottlieb whatever he wants didn’t help. In any case, this will be resolved in short order since it’s a Lively motion and Liman doesn’t keep her waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

[Anonymous]

Pro BL side is reaching hard; they’re now claiming that the CCs were in touch with TAG via alternate personas. Why can’t they believe people HATE Blake? She’s a tone deaf moron who made light of domestic violence during promo for a movie that made $350 million. It’s not like this bad press was generated for a movie that no one saw, which would have been unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

Stop. People hate this talentless moron, no smear campaign was needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.