Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney. Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires. Which Freedman fully did, actually.

Ferrer is a witness with relevant information who already replied to another subpoena. WF has made attempts to serve her in person. Lively was allowed to serve people via LinkedIn on similar facts. There's no reason for Liman to make WF hire investigators to serve Ferrer when her attorney is right there.

Liman may love Gottlieb, but I think the total idiocy of filing an opposition to a motion for alternative service, while still refusing to accept service from one party while accepting from the other, will annoy him to no end. Add in the opposition brief wasn’t even on topic.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Liman will be extra hard on someone for their first filing in this case tbh. It's literally her first filing. And I would argue that Fritz is up to his old PR business again in his response here by quoting Ferrer's text language about Baldoni in the letter (really there is no legal purpose for that in this letter, it's pure PR to feed the content creators grifting off this case). The offer to let Ferrer out of the case altogether and testify/produce for neither WF nor Lively seems to have a legal purpose I guess but also really is PR - WF can't really offer this and it's extremely self-interested of them to do so given the obviously negative tone of Ferrer's letter.

I'm not saying Ferrer's letter is good. Just saying WF's response is still playing PR games which Fritz has been strictly warned about and yet still persists. Fritz has had loads of chances at filing pleadings here and Ferrer is on attempt #1, so I'm not sure Fritz is "winning" here.

Personally, I don't think Fritz's letter was very good (and considering how bad Ferrer's opposition was, that should have been a slam dunk response, but they go off on weird tangents instead), but Ferrer's argument is still so terrible that it would be unreasonable for Liman not to grant the motion for alternative service. Like, even if Wayfarer didn't respond at all to Ferrer, Ferrer's opposition is so bad (I'm for attorney, she's willing to comply with the subpoena, but haha you have the wrong address so you have to find her in person even though he feels harassed) that he should grant alternative service through her attorney. The purpose of service is for her to be notified of the subpoena. She's now notified. Done.

Agree, this is basically a ministerial motion. It was over after they outlined the steps they took to serve her initially. The fact that her attorney has since made an appearance before Liman seals it.

Well, these takes were extremely wrong.

Nope, the judge just sucks.

Never u dearest I ate how far this judge will deviate from normal practice to rule against Wayfair.

Never underestimate

Yeah, I won't try to predict anymore, I'll just defer to the Liman Gottlieb hot tub poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Wayfarer’s lawyering bad or is the judge just corrupt?

Maybe both. It was stupid for Wayfarer to write that they didn't pull her address out of thin air and they would be willing to explain, instead of just doing that in their response. But also thought the judge would say her attorney responding to their motion proves she is on notice and she can be served through him. This makes me want to go back and look at all of Lively's motions because I feel like there were others where no one confirmed the person lived at that address, but Liman still granted it.

Those motions weren't challenged. This motion was challenged. Hey, if those motions had been challenged, I bet you one million dollars that Lively's attorneys wouldn't have responded to the challenge by saying "we promise we didn't pull the addresses out of thin air, let us know later if you want to see our proof" lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what was that whole thing where he was hiring the Geragos firm which is friendly to Freedman? Now he's against Freedman?

All that is clear at this point is the guy has a constantly changing narrative.

Eh, I do think there is one nugget here that is consistent, and that is that Leslie Sloane did not tell Vituscka in August 2024 that Baldoni sexually harassed or assaulted Blake. This keeps getting obscured but Vituscka has actually been very consistent about that from the beginning. It's just that Freedman tried to make it seem otherwise via a bit of sleight of hand, and a lot of people online took Freedman's version as gospel.

The sleight of hand is that Freedman included an UNDATED text exchange between Nathan and Vituscka where JV says the following: "She [Sloane] said the whole cast hits [sic] Justin this has nothing to do with Blake and now she's saying that Blake was sexually assaulted. Why wouldn't she say anything about that then? She knows she is full of shit. She told me that the whole issue was that everybody hates Justin. Nothing about Blake and Justin. She said it has nothing to do with Blake. Bullshit."

Baldoni's initial complaint makes it seem like this undated exchange happened in August 2024, and that they are discussing what Sloane was saying (to Vituscka and others) in August 2024). In reality, this exchange happened in December 2025, and Vituscka is reacting to Blake's CRD complaint and the allegations in the NYT. He is confusing sexual harassment and assault (referring to the claims in Blake's complaint and the article as assault when Blake only alleged harassment), but he's specifically telling Nathan that Sloane never told him Justin sexually harassed Lively back in August.

Yet Freedman used this exchange as evidence that Sloane had defamed Justin by saying he sexually assaulted Blake back in August 2024. When actually Vituscka's texts prove the opposite -- in August 2024, Sloane only described the situation to Vituscka as a personality spat between Justin and the rest of the cast. Nathan and Baldoni may have feared or believed that Sloane was spreading rumors about Justin being a sexual harasser, and thus might have felt justified in their own actions against Blake. But Vituscka is confirming that at least in his conversations with Sloane, she was doing the opposite -- downplaying any issues between Justin and Blake and not mentioning any harassing on set behavior by Justin.

I get why Vituscka is mad at Freedman. By using the exchange without a date and failing to properly contextualize it in the complaint, Freedman put Vituscka in a terrible position with regards to both his employer and the public, and in retrospect it looks like Vituscka was actually being honest the whole time until the Daily Mail pushed him to issue a statement he is now saying was not truthful.

Yes, agree with this. And also imho this is a serious ethical violation by Freedman for filing misleading statements he knew to be untrue with the court. Wut? I sense another motion for sanctions coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney. Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires. Which Freedman fully did, actually.

Ferrer is a witness with relevant information who already replied to another subpoena. WF has made attempts to serve her in person. Lively was allowed to serve people via LinkedIn on similar facts. There's no reason for Liman to make WF hire investigators to serve Ferrer when her attorney is right there.

Liman may love Gottlieb, but I think the total idiocy of filing an opposition to a motion for alternative service, while still refusing to accept service from one party while accepting from the other, will annoy him to no end. Add in the opposition brief wasn’t even on topic.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Liman will be extra hard on someone for their first filing in this case tbh. It's literally her first filing. And I would argue that Fritz is up to his old PR business again in his response here by quoting Ferrer's text language about Baldoni in the letter (really there is no legal purpose for that in this letter, it's pure PR to feed the content creators grifting off this case). The offer to let Ferrer out of the case altogether and testify/produce for neither WF nor Lively seems to have a legal purpose I guess but also really is PR - WF can't really offer this and it's extremely self-interested of them to do so given the obviously negative tone of Ferrer's letter.

I'm not saying Ferrer's letter is good. Just saying WF's response is still playing PR games which Fritz has been strictly warned about and yet still persists. Fritz has had loads of chances at filing pleadings here and Ferrer is on attempt #1, so I'm not sure Fritz is "winning" here.

Personally, I don't think Fritz's letter was very good (and considering how bad Ferrer's opposition was, that should have been a slam dunk response, but they go off on weird tangents instead), but Ferrer's argument is still so terrible that it would be unreasonable for Liman not to grant the motion for alternative service. Like, even if Wayfarer didn't respond at all to Ferrer, Ferrer's opposition is so bad (I'm for attorney, she's willing to comply with the subpoena, but haha you have the wrong address so you have to find her in person even though he feels harassed) that he should grant alternative service through her attorney. The purpose of service is for her to be notified of the subpoena. She's now notified. Done.

Agree, this is basically a ministerial motion. It was over after they outlined the steps they took to serve her initially. The fact that her attorney has since made an appearance before Liman seals it.

Well, these takes were extremely wrong.

Nope, the judge just sucks.

Never u dearest I ate how far this judge will deviate from normal practice to rule against Wayfair.

Never underestimate

Yeah, I won't try to predict anymore, I'll just defer to the Liman Gottlieb hot tub poster.

She’s always right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Wayfarer’s lawyering bad or is the judge just corrupt?

Maybe both. It was stupid for Wayfarer to write that they didn't pull her address out of thin air and they would be willing to explain, instead of just doing that in their response. But also thought the judge would say her attorney responding to their motion proves she is on notice and she can be served through him. This makes me want to go back and look at all of Lively's motions because I feel like there were others where no one confirmed the person lived at that address, but Liman still granted it.

Those motions weren't challenged. This motion was challenged. Hey, if those motions had been challenged, I bet you one million dollars that Lively's attorneys wouldn't have responded to the challenge by saying "we promise we didn't pull the addresses out of thin air, let us know later if you want to see our proof" lol.

But!shit, her attorney has entered an appearance before the Court. This is not a case where poor Isabel didn’t have notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what was that whole thing where he was hiring the Geragos firm which is friendly to Freedman? Now he's against Freedman?

All that is clear at this point is the guy has a constantly changing narrative.

Eh, I do think there is one nugget here that is consistent, and that is that Leslie Sloane did not tell Vituscka in August 2024 that Baldoni sexually harassed or assaulted Blake. This keeps getting obscured but Vituscka has actually been very consistent about that from the beginning. It's just that Freedman tried to make it seem otherwise via a bit of sleight of hand, and a lot of people online took Freedman's version as gospel.

The sleight of hand is that Freedman included an UNDATED text exchange between Nathan and Vituscka where JV says the following: "She [Sloane] said the whole cast hits [sic] Justin this has nothing to do with Blake and now she's saying that Blake was sexually assaulted. Why wouldn't she say anything about that then? She knows she is full of shit. She told me that the whole issue was that everybody hates Justin. Nothing about Blake and Justin. She said it has nothing to do with Blake. Bullshit."

Baldoni's initial complaint makes it seem like this undated exchange happened in August 2024, and that they are discussing what Sloane was saying (to Vituscka and others) in August 2024). In reality, this exchange happened in December 2025, and Vituscka is reacting to Blake's CRD complaint and the allegations in the NYT. He is confusing sexual harassment and assault (referring to the claims in Blake's complaint and the article as assault when Blake only alleged harassment), but he's specifically telling Nathan that Sloane never told him Justin sexually harassed Lively back in August.

Yet Freedman used this exchange as evidence that Sloane had defamed Justin by saying he sexually assaulted Blake back in August 2024. When actually Vituscka's texts prove the opposite -- in August 2024, Sloane only described the situation to Vituscka as a personality spat between Justin and the rest of the cast. Nathan and Baldoni may have feared or believed that Sloane was spreading rumors about Justin being a sexual harasser, and thus might have felt justified in their own actions against Blake. But Vituscka is confirming that at least in his conversations with Sloane, she was doing the opposite -- downplaying any issues between Justin and Blake and not mentioning any harassing on set behavior by Justin.

I get why Vituscka is mad at Freedman. By using the exchange without a date and failing to properly contextualize it in the complaint, Freedman put Vituscka in a terrible position with regards to both his employer and the public, and in retrospect it looks like Vituscka was actually being honest the whole time until the Daily Mail pushed him to issue a statement he is now saying was not truthful.

I think Vitiscka is a liar but I think m we can all agree that there is not a text in existence from December 2025.


He is filing an affidavit about claims that have not been part of the case for four months. His claims, even if true, simply have no relevance to the remainingcase. He could file a claim of misconduct against Freedman with the Bar, if he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: Does the psychology of workplace harassment operate the same as domestic abuse?

I often see people conflating the two when it comes to the case. Like on r/IEWU, someone who was abused said she also texted her abuser after the fact. Obviously victims go back to their abusers all the time and text them like nothing happened, which means a positive text doesn't prove an abuser's innocence.

But does that dynamic map onto workplace relationships?

Anyways, what struck me about Isabela's text is ... I don't know, she sent it randomly after seeing something that reminded her of JB. And she was very specific about how safe she felt. It wasn't just like a "Let's work again" text or generic in anyway, which makes the belief that she was uncomfortable on set harder to buy.

I know nothing about this case but I was sexually harassed by a supervisor (repeated sexual comments plus two incidents where I was touched inappropriately in a private area at work without consent) and because I was young, new on the job, and there was a cult of worship around the supervisor,I continued to be very pleasant to them the entire time I worked there and even wound up inviting them to an important personal event. It was 100% because I was afraid of them and thought if they sensed I was upset about their behavior, they would go nuclear on me and badmouth me not just within the company but elsewhere too.

And I was right because when I finally left that job (took me a year to find another position from the date of the physical harassment), I was honest in my exit interview and told them what had happened, and the supervisor that of everyone I was a vindictive liar who was just bitter/jealous.

Again, only talking about my own experience here, but yes, workplace harassment can look like an abusive relationship. In my case, I needed the job and truly did not feel I could just walk away, and my youth was also a huge factor because I was really scared of getting labeled as a problem employee or complainer of I came forward. I know I'd handle that situation differently now, but I also think I'm way less likely to be harassed in that way now -- I now know that supervisor has a history of doing the same thing to new/young employees.

Sorry for your experience but couldn’t be any more irrelevant. She would be a secondary witness under the protection of Blake and Ryan.

Wow, this answer is so rude. PP was explaining why someone who actually was a victim of SH wouldn't speak up at the time and how that's similar to the dynamics of domestic abuse where someone wouldn't feel comfortable trying to leave right away, or speaking the truth to their abuser etc. And you're totally rolling over everything they're saying with some BS about the protection of Blake and Ryan. That's a whole other question, not the question that was asked, and you're assuming a lot anyway.

So weird and rude. Throwing up in my mouth at you.

Could not care less.

[Anonymous]

NAG has a good video on Liman's denial of the motion for alternative service on Ferrer: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7541108018323197198?lang=en

Basically she just points out all the things that the "the judge is biased!" crowd misses because they don't know anything about the law:

1. Liman isn't saying they can never get alternative service, he's just saying that trying to serve her twice and then asking the lawyer to consent to accepting service is not enough to meet the burden for alternative service.

2. The judge basically tells them they need to do a skip trace, try to serve using that info, and then if they still can't do it, refile for alternative service.

3. The judge CANNOT force Ferrer's lawyer to accept service for her. That's something lawyers often do as a courtesy. And yeah, it is kind of obnoxious Ferrer's lawyer won't do it here and is clearly based on a lot of animosity between Ferrer's camp and Baldoni's camp at this point. But none of that has anything to do with Liman. Lawyers aren't required to accept service for their clients and Liman can't force it to happen, so this is not evidence of Liman's bias it's just the reality of what judges can do and not do.

4. NAG also mentions that when Liman granted Lively's motion for alternative service on another witness, her servers attempted to serve the subpoena nine different times AND did a skip trace. So basically Liman is just asking Wayfarer to do as much as the other party did in attempting to serve before filing for alternative service. So this is actually an example of Liman being consistent and treating both parties the same, not evidence of bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Wayfarer’s lawyering bad or is the judge just corrupt?

Maybe both. It was stupid for Wayfarer to write that they didn't pull her address out of thin air and they would be willing to explain, instead of just doing that in their response. But also thought the judge would say her attorney responding to their motion proves she is on notice and she can be served through him. This makes me want to go back and look at all of Lively's motions because I feel like there were others where no one confirmed the person lived at that address, but Liman still granted it.

Those motions weren't challenged. This motion was challenged. Hey, if those motions had been challenged, I bet you one million dollars that Lively's attorneys wouldn't have responded to the challenge by saying "we promise we didn't pull the addresses out of thin air, let us know later if you want to see our proof" lol.

But!shit, her attorney has entered an appearance before the Court. This is not a case where poor Isabel didn’t have notice.

Liman can't make him accept service. If he doesn't want to accept service for Ferrer, that is his prerogative and there is no legal way to compel him to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what was that whole thing where he was hiring the Geragos firm which is friendly to Freedman? Now he's against Freedman?

All that is clear at this point is the guy has a constantly changing narrative.

Eh, I do think there is one nugget here that is consistent, and that is that Leslie Sloane did not tell Vituscka in August 2024 that Baldoni sexually harassed or assaulted Blake. This keeps getting obscured but Vituscka has actually been very consistent about that from the beginning. It's just that Freedman tried to make it seem otherwise via a bit of sleight of hand, and a lot of people online took Freedman's version as gospel.

The sleight of hand is that Freedman included an UNDATED text exchange between Nathan and Vituscka where JV says the following: "She [Sloane] said the whole cast hits [sic] Justin this has nothing to do with Blake and now she's saying that Blake was sexually assaulted. Why wouldn't she say anything about that then? She knows she is full of shit. She told me that the whole issue was that everybody hates Justin. Nothing about Blake and Justin. She said it has nothing to do with Blake. Bullshit."

Baldoni's initial complaint makes it seem like this undated exchange happened in August 2024, and that they are discussing what Sloane was saying (to Vituscka and others) in August 2024). In reality, this exchange happened in December 2025, and Vituscka is reacting to Blake's CRD complaint and the allegations in the NYT. He is confusing sexual harassment and assault (referring to the claims in Blake's complaint and the article as assault when Blake only alleged harassment), but he's specifically telling Nathan that Sloane never told him Justin sexually harassed Lively back in August.

Yet Freedman used this exchange as evidence that Sloane had defamed Justin by saying he sexually assaulted Blake back in August 2024. When actually Vituscka's texts prove the opposite -- in August 2024, Sloane only described the situation to Vituscka as a personality spat between Justin and the rest of the cast. Nathan and Baldoni may have feared or believed that Sloane was spreading rumors about Justin being a sexual harasser, and thus might have felt justified in their own actions against Blake. But Vituscka is confirming that at least in his conversations with Sloane, she was doing the opposite -- downplaying any issues between Justin and Blake and not mentioning any harassing on set behavior by Justin.

I get why Vituscka is mad at Freedman. By using the exchange without a date and failing to properly contextualize it in the complaint, Freedman put Vituscka in a terrible position with regards to both his employer and the public, and in retrospect it looks like Vituscka was actually being honest the whole time until the Daily Mail pushed him to issue a statement he is now saying was not truthful.

Yes, agree with this. And also imho this is a serious ethical violation by Freedman for filing misleading statements he knew to be untrue with the court. Wut? I sense another motion for sanctions coming.

At a minimum this really improves the likelihood that Leslie Sloane will get attorneys fees paid by Wayfarer. Because if Freedman knowingly included that exchange as evidence that Sloane had defamed Baldoni, when in proper context it is evidence of the opposite, then Sloane can argue that the claims against her were made in bad faith which would be huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NAG has a good video on Liman's denial of the motion for alternative service on Ferrer: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7541108018323197198?lang=en

Basically she just points out all the things that the "the judge is biased!" crowd misses because they don't know anything about the law:

1. Liman isn't saying they can never get alternative service, he's just saying that trying to serve her twice and then asking the lawyer to consent to accepting service is not enough to meet the burden for alternative service.

2. The judge basically tells them they need to do a skip trace, try to serve using that info, and then if they still can't do it, refile for alternative service.

3. The judge CANNOT force Ferrer's lawyer to accept service for her. That's something lawyers often do as a courtesy. And yeah, it is kind of obnoxious Ferrer's lawyer won't do it here and is clearly based on a lot of animosity between Ferrer's camp and Baldoni's camp at this point. But none of that has anything to do with Liman. Lawyers aren't required to accept service for their clients and Liman can't force it to happen, so this is not evidence of Liman's bias it's just the reality of what judges can do and not do.

4. NAG also mentions that when Liman granted Lively's motion for alternative service on another witness, her servers attempted to serve the subpoena nine different times AND did a skip trace. So basically Liman is just asking Wayfarer to do as much as the other party did in attempting to serve before filing for alternative service. So this is actually an example of Liman being consistent and treating both parties the same, not evidence of bias.

I don't understand why Wayfarer didn't serve Ferrer much earlier. I think some of the urgency here has to do with the fact that they didn't even attempt to serve her until July, and now their discovery window is closing, and they rushed a motion for alternative service to try and meet their discovery deadlines. It was obvious Ferrer could be a material witness way back in December, and there is no evidence that their subpoena asks for info that was only recently discovered -- they are looking for info related to things they've known since Lively's claim was filed.

So why did they wait until July? I think Ferrer's lawyer would argue that they only filed the subpoena, and now the motion for alternative service, to harass her due to their dispute over whether they can choose her lawyer and strategy under her indemnification agreement. But that doesn't really make sense to me. I can't think of another reason that isn't "incompetence" though because the timing makes no sense at all if they actually want/need the info from Ferrer for their case. And now they are saying they'd consent to having neither side call her at all and just dismissing her as a witness, which also doesn't make sense unless you assume Ferrer's testimony would be very damaging to Baldoni. Like that argument feels like an obvious own goal -- what a fundamentally bizarre argument to make in your own motion for alternative service of a subpoena.

"Your honor, it's incredibly important that we be able to serve this subpoena on this witness immediately via alternative service because the subpoena is very essential and the information it solicits is critical to our case, but also if the witness won't accept alternative service we are okay just not having her involved at all and never hearing from her again." Um. Shady.

[Anonymous]

Arlington mom chatting with herself again.

[Anonymous]

4. NAG also mentions that when Liman granted Lively's motion for alternative service on another witness, her servers attempted to serve the subpoena nine different times AND did a skip trace. So basically Liman is just asking Wayfarer to do as much as the other party did in attempting to serve before filing for alternative service. So this is actually an example of Liman being consistent and treating both parties the same, not evidence of bias.

She did say that, but it's not totally accurate for all of them. For example, Lively attempted to serve Matthew Mitchell at the last known address, the neighbors said he didn't live there, and Liman granted the motion. That's fairly similar to Ferrer's case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.333.2.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Wayfarer’s lawyering bad or is the judge just corrupt?

Maybe both. It was stupid for Wayfarer to write that they didn't pull her address out of thin air and they would be willing to explain, instead of just doing that in their response. But also thought the judge would say her attorney responding to their motion proves she is on notice and she can be served through him. This makes me want to go back and look at all of Lively's motions because I feel like there were others where no one confirmed the person lived at that address, but Liman still granted it.

Those motions weren't challenged. This motion was challenged. Hey, if those motions had been challenged, I bet you one million dollars that Lively's attorneys wouldn't have responded to the challenge by saying "we promise we didn't pull the addresses out of thin air, let us know later if you want to see our proof" lol.

But!shit, her attorney has entered an appearance before the Court. This is not a case where poor Isabel didn’t have notice.

Liman can't make him accept service. If he doesn't want to accept service for Ferrer, that is his prerogative and there is no legal way to compel him to do so.

Isn't that what this motion was for? Seems more reasonable to serve through her attorney, who is appearing on her behalf, in this very case, than LinkedIn and voicemails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

4. NAG also mentions that when Liman granted Lively's motion for alternative service on another witness, her servers attempted to serve the subpoena nine different times AND did a skip trace. So basically Liman is just asking Wayfarer to do as much as the other party did in attempting to serve before filing for alternative service. So this is actually an example of Liman being consistent and treating both parties the same, not evidence of bias.

She did say that, but it's not totally accurate for all of them. For example, Lively attempted to serve Matthew Mitchell at the last known address, the neighbors said he didn't live there, and Liman granted the motion. That's fairly similar to Ferrer's case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.333.2.pdf

But they attempted to serve him on 8 separate occasions at the same address over a 23-day span. They also called the phone number provided by Mitchell by Wayfarer, and reached a voice mailbox that identified it as the number of Mitchell, but received no response to that message.

Whereas Wayfarer only attempted to serve Ferrer over the course of 4 days in early August at two separate addresses (one was visited twice, the other four times, all within a very short time span). Wayfarer describes both as "last known address" but admits they didn't use a skip trace (which is super basic) to get this addresses. They also did not attempt any other means of locating Ferrer, including contacting her talent agent with whom they had previous communicated when Ferrer worked for Wayfarer.

Thus Liman concluded that Lively had exhausted all means to reach Mitchell, because they spent longer on it and attempted to contact via multiple means. Whereas the conclusion is that 4 days of effort and the failure to exhaust other known means of location was deemed insufficient.

I'm sorry but this is a really standard decision. They can run the skip trace (or call her talent agent, or both) and if they still can't reach her, refile and he'll probably grant it. The standard for granting alternative service requires you to show that you have real need, and Wayfarer hasn't done that yet.