Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about that head mod (I've seen theories about them, but not enough firsthand observation to say). But that account that made the "conspiracy theory energy" post is legitimately WHOA. Especially if you look at their deleted posts, including their first on this case claiming to have insider info from set (I remember CCs making content about that post):

https://arctic-shift.photon-reddit.com/search?fun=posts_search&author=Gabrielahearst&before=2025-05-29T16%3A31%3A39&limit=10&sort=desc

I seriously hope Mike Gottlieb or Esra Hudson sent a preservation notice to Reddit for this account's subscriber info.

Example of CC (Dave Neal) making content based on that Redditor's now-deleted "Information from the set of It Ends with Us" post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IriUOehSNrM . 20-minute video, nearly 100K views.

Sorry, not following here. What is the implication? That this redditor might be feeding pro-JB narratives at the behest if someone in that side?

Not being snarky, genuinely asking.

The main way these digital campaigns are believed to work is by seeding and then amplifying. IF that Reddit account is TAG or a TAG subcontractor, their "Inside info from set" post (which very specifically advances a narrative that would be useful for Wayfarer's defense, not just a generally anti-Blake narrative) would be an example of seeding and the video would be an example of amplifying. Not all amplification would be through CCs who were in direct communication, witting or unwitting, with TAG. Some, like Dave (whose account has not been subpoenaed that I know of) are just reliable creatures of the algorithm and will make videos about whatever Reddit post is getting the most traction that day.

It goes without saying that none of this is yet proof of anything. But I can guarantee you that this is the kind of thing Blake's lawyers and their investigators are pursuing in discovery.

Not gonna click that weird arctic link but I'm guessing this is referring to that reddit post that was circulating from around the time of the premiere with the "insider" that knew Blake was considering going to the NYT because Justin called her hot, or something like that. That one pinged for me as planted too.

If TAG posted something in a public forum like that, and a content creator finds it and comments on it (as any of us can do), that is way too attenuated to subpoena that content creator, especially for geolocation, bank account numbers, and so on.

No, this is actually a different, since-deleted Reddit post purporting to be from an insider. (I believe the one you're referring to was planted as well.) The arctic link - understandable you wouldn't want to click - is for the Reddit archive, where you can see and search since-deleted posts: https://arctic-shift.photon-reddit.com/search/ . You can search that Redditor's account name (gabrielahearst) in the "author" field if you're curious. You can also click the Dave Neal YouTube link where he reads the post and shows it on screen.

Agreed that a creator finding and amplifying this kind of content would not be enough, on its own, to subpoena their subscriber info.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Blake plans to subpoena any actual journalists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Blake plans to subpoena any actual journalists

I believe she has.

The more legitimate the journalist and outlet is, the less likely they are to be, say, live streaming their receipt of a subpoena or posting taunting tik toks about it. Real journalists from publications with standards (and lawyers) will follow legal advice, lay low, and avoid making the subpoena a news story starring them. Because doing so is both legally stupid and complicated their ethical obligations as journalists.

The people being noisy about their subpoenas either don't have legal representation (these smaller content creators) or don't have any professional ethics (Perez, Candace).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about that head mod (I've seen theories about them, but not enough firsthand observation to say). But that account that made the "conspiracy theory energy" post is legitimately WHOA. Especially if you look at their deleted posts, including their first on this case claiming to have insider info from set (I remember CCs making content about that post):

https://arctic-shift.photon-reddit.com/search?fun=posts_search&author=Gabrielahearst&before=2025-05-29T16%3A31%3A39&limit=10&sort=desc

I seriously hope Mike Gottlieb or Esra Hudson sent a preservation notice to Reddit for this account's subscriber info.

Example of CC (Dave Neal) making content based on that Redditor's now-deleted "Information from the set of It Ends with Us" post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IriUOehSNrM . 20-minute video, nearly 100K views.

Sorry, not following here. What is the implication? That this redditor might be feeding pro-JB narratives at the behest if someone in that side?

Not being snarky, genuinely asking.

The main way these digital campaigns are believed to work is by seeding and then amplifying. IF that Reddit account is TAG or a TAG subcontractor, their "Inside info from set" post (which very specifically advances a narrative that would be useful for Wayfarer's defense, not just a generally anti-Blake narrative) would be an example of seeding and the video would be an example of amplifying. Not all amplification would be through CCs who were in direct communication, witting or unwitting, with TAG. Some, like Dave (whose account has not been subpoenaed that I know of) are just reliable creatures of the algorithm and will make videos about whatever Reddit post is getting the most traction that day.

It goes without saying that none of this is yet proof of anything. But I can guarantee you that this is the kind of thing Blake's lawyers and their investigators are pursuing in discovery.

Not gonna click that weird arctic link but I'm guessing this is referring to that reddit post that was circulating from around the time of the premiere with the "insider" that knew Blake was considering going to the NYT because Justin called her hot, or something like that. That one pinged for me as planted too.

If TAG posted something in a public forum like that, and a content creator finds it and comments on it (as any of us can do), that is way too attenuated to subpoena that content creator, especially for geolocation, bank account numbers, and so on.

No, this is actually a different, since-deleted Reddit post purporting to be from an insider. (I believe the one you're referring to was planted as well.) The arctic link - understandable you wouldn't want to click - is for the Reddit archive, where you can see and search since-deleted posts: https://arctic-shift.photon-reddit.com/search/ . You can search that Redditor's account name (gabrielahearst) in the "author" field if you're curious. You can also click the Dave Neal YouTube link where he reads the post and shows it on screen.

Agreed that a creator finding and amplifying this kind of content would not be enough, on its own, to subpoena their subscriber info.

Won't go into too much post-by-post detail, partly due to lack of time and partly because it feels a bit creepy even with a likely-inauthentic account....BUT it is FASCINATING to read through that account's partially-deleted post history on the Reddit archive as if we know it is definitely a TAG account. (Obviously we don't know that yet.) Super interesting which narratives and messages they were pushing at different moments:

-Some of it entirely unsurprising (insiders say Blake steamrolled Justin during filming, Taylor dumped her as a friend because she knows she's lying, Scott Swift leaked to Freedman)
-Some of it suggests recurring strategy of front-running/proactively framing unfavorable stories. Eg posting just before the big dismissal order (with a poll to gauge how shocked the fans would be!) expressing worry that many/all of JB's claims might be dismissed with prejudice, presenting "2 explanations" for why Scooter Braun is being subpoenaed without mentioning his ownership of TAG in either of them
-A few posts - the most fascinating to me - almost seem to suggest potential defenses and associated narratives that are being trial-ballooned or focus-grouped. Eg theory that JB and BL had some sort of never-consummated mutual flirtation or emotional affair, and her complaints were "fallout between two people who blurred way too many lines."

[Anonymous]

Anyway - judge has responded to two content creators and set dates for them to file MTQ!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway - judge has responded to two content creators and set dates for them to file MTQ!

I saw that. I think Google actually gave them until 7/31 to respond but Liman gave the one who filed a letter of intent until only 7/28, so less time than she should've had lol.

[Anonymous]

Another update - he’s also allowing them to pursue option to file anonymously for the MTQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Blake plans to subpoena any actual journalists

Probably not, she has also avoided attorneys living in US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway - judge has responded to two content creators and set dates for them to file MTQ!

I saw that. I think Google actually gave them until 7/31 to respond but Liman gave the one who filed a letter of intent until only 7/28, so less time than she should've had lol.

On brand for Liman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway - judge has responded to two content creators and set dates for them to file MTQ!

I saw that. I think Google actually gave them until 7/31 to respond but Liman gave the one who filed a letter of intent until only 7/28, so less time than she should've had lol.

On brand for Liman.

Hah, I know, but I would hope he'd grant an extension if she asks, otherwise it's unfair that she's punished for being diligent about the letter notifying of her intent. These are all under one subpoena to google so it makes no sense for them to all have different deadlines and then for Lively to have different deadlines to respond to each one. Also - curious if Lively will have to draft replies to each one individually or can put them all together.

And very, very curious how aggressive their responses will be. They were fairly aggressive about Popcorn Planet dude recording their receptionist, calling it a crime. It won't be a good look if they are aggressive and insulting towards the smaller female creators, some of whom have low subscriber numbers.

[Anonymous]

Does Wayfarer have standing to intervene in support of the content creators' motion to quash?

[Anonymous]

Liman has set an in-person oral argument (damn! But hopefully it will be live-tweeted) for July 30th on the motion to quash Lively's subpoena to Freedman's firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does Wayfarer have standing to intervene in support of the content creators' motion to quash?

No. Only grounds would be privilege and there's no possible way to assert privilege over the creators' Google account subscriber information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Wayfarer have standing to intervene in support of the content creators' motion to quash?

No. Only grounds would be privilege and there's no possible way to assert privilege over the creators' Google account subscriber information.

Adding that this is true for the subpoenas to Google, X, and any other platforms seeking account info. Wayfarer theoretically could move to intervene in support of MTQs filed by the three creators (Candace O., Andy S., Perez H.) who received more extensive individual subpoenas for comms etc. For Perez I guess they could assert attorney-client privilege. For the other two, they could assert work product if they brought them on board as litigation-related contractors. But that in itself would be a pretty huge admission.

[Anonymous]

Another day another docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70867419/harco-national-insurance-company-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

TLDR: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/it-ends-with-us-insurer-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-legal-fees-1236324754/
Wayfarer’s insurer for the film, Harco National Insurance, filed a lawsuit in New York federal court on Monday seeking a court order that it has no duty to pay legal fees for the production company or its officers. It says that the alleged misconduct occurred before the effective date of the policy and that it wasn’t informed of Blake Lively‘s complaints, a precursor to the sprawling litigation, during the filming of the movie.