Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Reddit shared the filings for Google, X and TikTok

I follow a few TikTok creators covering this case and none of the major ones are listed among the 7

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/Vp8Ayo3GmI

Curious as to any insights on any of the CC. Like, do these CC claim to have blind items or give iinside information, or is it strictly their opinions? I know Perez was asked about blind items.

One of the TikTok accounts is definitely gossip/blinds (pop diaries)

https://www.tiktok.com/@pop.diaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Its seven. None appear to be legal. I noticed some screen names referring to spirituality.

But really, how could Lively’s attorneys not think this would backfire? They KNOW what names are on the list.

If the rumors are to be believed , Ryan wanted to get aggressive and drive the case. And he did, right over a cliff.

Any site links to go to talking more about Ryan inserting himself- specifically I saw a Reddit post about Ryan storyboarding and wondered if that was joke or real and if real, who talking about it?

[Anonymous]

Looking through the X accounts she subpoeaned and some of them are so random, with barely any followers?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.459.3.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking through the X accounts she subpoeaned and some of them are so random, with barely any followers?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.459.3.pdf

PP This person could've deleted their latest tweets, but from what's available, what they said about Blake was nothing, they just referenced a possible feud, and they still got subpoeaned: https://x.com/search?q=from%3Afeathersmodel%20Blake&src=typed_query&f=live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking through the X accounts she subpoeaned and some of them are so random, with barely any followers?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.459.3.pdf

I'm so puzzled because if nothing else, her lawyers are good at lawyering, so I wonder how they'll respond, although they really shouldn't because presumably tomorrow morning Liman will issue a quick ruling mooting their motion because Wayfarer agreed to de-designate. I don't know if they will try to write some lame "letter informing the court" tonight before midnight in response. Otherwise I guess we will start seeing responses as they answer the creators' motions.

Liman should just do what one of the creators requested which was to revoke (quash) all of these subpoenas. Force them to start new and articulate precise reasons for each and every one of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking through the X accounts she subpoeaned and some of them are so random, with barely any followers?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.459.3.pdf

PP This person could've deleted their latest tweets, but from what's available, what they said about Blake was nothing, they just referenced a possible feud, and they still got subpoeaned: https://x.com/search?q=from%3Afeathersmodel%20Blake&src=typed_query&f=live

This is one case where I'm grateful for the "sleuths!" Let reddit and TikTok digest this and figure out what's what and who's who.

[Anonymous]

Not Actually Golden just posted and her view is this was a bad move for Blake and that the Wayfarer response was solid

[Anonymous]

One of the subpoenaed creators just posted about the Wayfarer response

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not Actually Golden just posted and her view is this was a bad move for Blake and that the Wayfarer response was solid

How do we think Liman is going to argue against Wayfarer and help out Blake this time? My prediction: he’ll have a clerk research says these users, type out every comment with Blake, then helpfully annotate them pointing out their potential ties with Jed Wallace, even if the only tie is that they said the word “Texas” once.

Then he’s going to take out a bottle of lotion and offer to massage Hudson’s and Gottlieb’s feet after all the stress they had to put themselves through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not Actually Golden just posted and her view is this was a bad move for Blake and that the Wayfarer response was solid

Wayfarer wrote a good response AND it was endorsed by NAG? Oof, then Liman is going to rule the opposite and Hudson is going to get whatever she wants on these content creators.

[Anonymous]

He has to deny Blake’s motion because Fritz made it moot, but he can just deny the creators MTQ, they are all pro se so there will be plenty of technical reasons, but that would be so, so gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not Actually Golden just posted and her view is this was a bad move for Blake and that the Wayfarer response was solid

Wayfarer wrote a good response AND it was endorsed by NAG? Oof, then Liman is going to rule the opposite and Hudson is going to get whatever she wants on these content creators.

She called the response a banger 🔥🔥🔥 and went through it in detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the subpoenaed creators just posted about the Wayfarer response

Will be shallow for a second, and say both Justin and Blake look really good in this still.

[Anonymous]

Fritz can't demand that Lively "no longer allege that anything concerning the so called 'campaign' is untraceable" though, lol, when it's their own people who called it that.

That said, I support Lively and thought the letter from Hudson was decent last week - but not if the overlap on their subpoenas is only one name lol. That's not a good showing at all.

I wondered whether there could be a misunderstanding here, like some people were the same but their online identities in the subpoena didn't match how they were listed in the ROGs, but that seems unlikely. So this effort by Lively's team gets an F from me. Boo.

Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret? That just seems incredibly dumb. Having a hard time understanding this tbh.

In other news, I do really enjoy the schadenfraude from the insurance carrier telling Sarowitz THERE IS NO WAY WE ARE PAYING FOR THIS when you took out the policy AFTER you found out about the harassment claims, and yet still didn't tell us about it, lol. Looks like the money Sarowitz will be losing really will be his, and not passed off to insurance. w00t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret? That just seems incredibly dumb. Having a hard time understanding this tbh.

Yeah her lawyers aren't above PR filings, but gambling on not getting unsealed would have been extremely dumb. And whatever you think of them they're not dumb. The only thing that makes sense to me is this was the opposite of a PR filing, ie they were counting on WF not opposing because they can't resist a "she lied!!!" moment. (Hudson's letter wasn't a lie, but it was misleading to the public, if not the court, if most of the subpoenaed SM accounts aren't on the ROG list.) I guess they're willing to endure that as a sort of sacrifice bunt and then the de-designation benefits them in a broader way? Alternatively, they desperately need this one ROG de-designated right away for reasons unrelated to SM subpoenas.... maybe related to the Popcorn Planet guy's individual subpoena?