Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Some comments from the Reddit discussion which summarizes what is going on with this specific lawsuit and subpoena

****

The allegations are so strange. They allege that the Doe defendants are "employees, contractors, agents, or representatives of Plaintiff" but that Plaintiff is not privy to their names or identities.

It accuses the Doe defendants of a number of wrongs. These include disclosing Plaintiff's confidential and private information in August 2024, and participating in a scheme to damage Plaintiff's business and reputation.

It sure sounds like BL/RR talking about the Wayfarer parties. But the plaintiff is Vanzan, not Blake herself.

The suit seems designed to avoid tipping off the Does or giving them a chance to quash the subpoena. If this is the basis for the subpoena, that is super shady.

****

So they obviously knew exactly who was involved and what they wanted when they filed this complaint. If it was used purely for the issue of the phone subpoena to Jones does that mean they diliberately mislead the court by using "Does" for the complaint when they knew exactly who and what info they wanted. An attempt to pervert the course of justice by not giving the parties the right to contest it.

****

Even if you take the viewpoint of "Well, it's legal, so what's the big deal?" it's going to look horrible in court that they went this far to get around having to give notice to Wayfarer and Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Because Taylor’s publicist or ex publicist has a connection to the shell company Blake and Ryan used for the straw lawsuit. It’s in the Daily Mail.

Here’s the Daily Mail article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14618807/blake-lively-shady-legal-maneuver-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-ends-us.html

All I can say is 'how disingenuous" BL is about this subpoena stuff! I cannot believe this. No redemption for her if this is true, which it appears to be. Just no redemption. This whole SH lawsuit is a complete farce by her and Ryan. Just no redemption.

[Anonymous]

As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

[Anonymous]

Thoughts from Not Actually Golden (attorney who has been following the case)

https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7494649840211791150

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

Just go away. I don't want to hear anymore from the Lively supporters on here on the merits of Blake's claims. You all know that it was false all along, but road with it, for whatever reason.

Receipts!

once again "receipts!"

Enough of this bs. All manufactured and orchestrated by Blake and Ryan.

Disgusting!!!

[Anonymous]

'rode'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Because Taylor’s publicist or ex publicist has a connection to the shell company Blake and Ryan used for the straw lawsuit. It’s in the Daily Mail.

Here’s the Daily Mail article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14618807/blake-lively-shady-legal-maneuver-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-ends-us.html

Thank you! Appreciate the link.

I've posted criticisms of Freedman before but I'm going to criticize Lively's team here. This article covers the statements from Freedman and from Esra Hudson. I really want to know how they can claim that these are unknown Doe defendants, and yet they know they have contracts with them, and also had enough information to issue the subpoena? That's rather curious. The only way I guess in theory it could work is if they heard a "rumor" that "someone" knew Stephanie Jones was in possession of some sort of communications that someone who may have been under contract with Lively was doing "something" against Lively and they issued a very broad subpoena to Jones for any and all communications related to Lively. But then, the plaintiff here isn't Lively, it's Vanzan, which is owned by Lively and Reynolds, but is apparently some kind of import company, so it seems unlikely they could credibly claim that this company had any contracts that would be in any way related to Jonesworks, PR, Wayfarer, or IEWU that were being breached, IMO.

Now if turns out the subpoena directly asks for information related to Wayfarer, IEWU, Baldoni, etc then I definitely think they have a problem if they can identify that information in the subpoena but somehow can't identify them as defendants to this Vanzan lawsuit.

As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

I do agree this isn't going to affect the admissibility of the texts in the main lawsuit, and have no idea if Blake and Ryan were personally aware of these legal maneuvers or understood them, but it's still really problematic and skirting ethics if their team tried to push through a lawsuit using Doe defendants for the purpose of not giving notice to the parties that were intended to be the defendants (Wayfarer and co). I mean, what if Sarowitz took one of his shell companies and started a Doe lawsuit and tried to use that lawsuit to subpoena some of Lively's records without her knowing? Lively and her supporters would be crying foul too.

[Anonymous]

I’m Team Baldoni but many attorneys are commenting that while this legal tactic feels nefarious or illegal, it likely is legal and won’t have repercussions for Lively and Reynolds. The attorneys may have their hands slapped but it’s not a serious offense.

However from a PR standpoint it feels icky and wrong, which won’t help Lively’s reputation and may also be looked at unfavorably in court should it go to trial.

Lots of commentary against Stephanie Jones and she may be the one most harmed both legally and reputationally by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts from Not Actually Golden (attorney who has been following the case)

https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7494649840211791150

Thank for linking. I'm surprised how neutral those comments are considering how she's been carrying on about this. Agree with her that it has big implications for Jones and that Baldoni could pursue her for indemnification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Because Taylor’s publicist or ex publicist has a connection to the shell company Blake and Ryan used for the straw lawsuit. It’s in the Daily Mail.

Here’s the Daily Mail article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14618807/blake-lively-shady-legal-maneuver-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-ends-us.html

Thank you! Appreciate the link.

I've posted criticisms of Freedman before but I'm going to criticize Lively's team here. This article covers the statements from Freedman and from Esra Hudson. I really want to know how they can claim that these are unknown Doe defendants, and yet they know they have contracts with them, and also had enough information to issue the subpoena? That's rather curious. The only way I guess in theory it could work is if they heard a "rumor" that "someone" knew Stephanie Jones was in possession of some sort of communications that someone who may have been under contract with Lively was doing "something" against Lively and they issued a very broad subpoena to Jones for any and all communications related to Lively. But then, the plaintiff here isn't Lively, it's Vanzan, which is owned by Lively and Reynolds, but is apparently some kind of import company, so it seems unlikely they could credibly claim that this company had any contracts that would be in any way related to Jonesworks, PR, Wayfarer, or IEWU that were being breached, IMO.

Now if turns out the subpoena directly asks for information related to Wayfarer, IEWU, Baldoni, etc then I definitely think they have a problem if they can identify that information in the subpoena but somehow can't identify them as defendants to this Vanzan lawsuit.

As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

I do agree this isn't going to affect the admissibility of the texts in the main lawsuit, and have no idea if Blake and Ryan were personally aware of these legal maneuvers or understood them, but it's still really problematic and skirting ethics if their team tried to push through a lawsuit using Doe defendants for the purpose of not giving notice to the parties that were intended to be the defendants (Wayfarer and co). I mean, what if Sarowitz took one of his shell companies and started a Doe lawsuit and tried to use that lawsuit to subpoena some of Lively's records without her knowing? Lively and her supporters would be crying foul too.

Respectfully, I think some of you commenting attorneys are pushing way to much legal theory on all of this, when the reality is that your common jury isn't going to fall for this legal mumbo jumbo. Jurists are everyday people, not a pool of top legal talent, that is deciding the claims of a case. The optics of this continue to look very bad for Blake's team. Very, very bad.

I know that you are trying to provide a 'neutral' approach to the facts and how they apply to your legal knowledge, but the fact remains that most people are going to see this case as it is. This fake subpoena (and I love the thought promoted above about the fact that their law firm may have illegally done this tactic without their knowledge. BS. If I'm paying you money to represent me, you mean I'm not going to know that you are filing a 'fake' subpoena. Blake and Ryan were integral actors in all of these early actions -- INTEGRAL. Lawyers are their agents. And Blake cannot claim that 'she was unaware that the subpoena was not real, that she's just that dumb and did not know.)

The legal nuances that several of you continue to hash over is for legal curiosity. Not one solid shred of evidence produced by the BL team that supports he harassed her -- no solid evidence yet! Everything that she has shared thus far to the public has been her opinion, unsupported by solid facts or evidence.

Enough already!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m Team Baldoni but many attorneys are commenting that while this legal tactic feels nefarious or illegal, it likely is legal and won’t have repercussions for Lively and Reynolds. The attorneys may have their hands slapped but it’s not a serious offense.

However from a PR standpoint it feels icky and wrong, which won’t help Lively’s reputation and may also be looked at unfavorably in court should it go to trial.

Lots of commentary against Stephanie Jones and she may be the one most harmed both legally and reputationally by this.

It really depends on the judge. Evidentiary sanctions (e.g. excluding the evidence) would be the most severe penalty but isn’t out of the question. I’m sure the lawyers will be reported to the bar and Freedman could also ask to have manatt removed from the case. And this looks really bad for the merits of the lawsuit itself and goes towards malice and collusion. Not to mention SH seems to be an add on to gain privileges, since it’s the only element not mentioned in the straw lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

I agree that this tactic and behavior will be unfavorably viewed by the jury. No one wants their personal text messages seized and if the argument is made that the messages were obtained by a legal but sneaky maneuver it won’t look good for Lively.

[Anonymous]

There’s a lot more than damages at stake here. Even if Blake wins in court, Ryan Reynold’s squeaky clean image is gone. Their actions add up to something far worse than what they’ve accuse Baldoni of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts from Not Actually Golden (attorney who has been following the case)

https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7494649840211791150

Thank for linking. I'm surprised how neutral those comments are considering how she's been carrying on about this. Agree with her that it has big implications for Jones and that Baldoni could pursue her for indemnification.

Another video from her

https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7494679676489714987

[Anonymous]

So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?