Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?
Daily Mail and other outlets had been reporting they'd seen the subpoena. A YouTuber called without a crystal ball made a video citing to a Doe lawsuit piecing together some of the available information (Daily Mail had said it was in NY court, October 2024, signed by an attorney from Manatt). A NY state docket was posted to a lawsuit filed by Manatt with Vanzan (a shipping company owned by Blake and Ryan) against John Does 1-10, asserting that plaintiffs believed Does had breached contracts and committed other torts but their identities were unknown. The lawsuit was dismissed a few days before the NYT article drops, so the timeline fits for the subpoena to have been issued under this case number. NY attorneys can sign subpoenas and they don't get posted to the docket, so we have not seen the subpoena itself to know how specific it is. Blake's attorney Esra Hudson commented to Daily Mail to the effect of "Doe lawsuits are perfectly common" which seemingly confirms that this is what happened.
Separately, people have been looking into various filings connected to Vanzan, and one of the findings was the rep listed for Vanzan is someone who works for Taylor Swift and is connected to a Swift video Blake directed, and also, that Liz Plank has a company registered at the same address with the same agent as Vanzan, which is spinning off various tangent theories.
lol, left out the key details. it’s been revealed that the subpoena was obtained via a sham law suit involving no entity related to the This is Us movie inorder to deprive the Wayfarer defendants the notice and a chance to object to the production of the texts they are entitled to. Jones may have turned over the texts even before the subpoena issued, perhaps for payment, and the sham lawsuit may have been an attempt to get them lawfully in Lively’s possession. Whether it rises to sanction able conduct has yet t be determined. Stay tuned. . .
Fact check:
- No lawyer would call this a "sham lawsuit". It's called a Doe lawsuit. There may be a dispute over whether they used a doe lawsuit fairly, however there is no question as to whether or not it was legal -- it was.
- Lively would be entitled to the texts no matter what, and even if Wayfarer and Abel had been alerted to the subpoena, they could not have objected to their production. They could have requested a protective order to keep them from being publicized, but the texts did not belong to them and did not contain any protected communications (for instance with a lawyer or doctor). If Lively had not obtained the texts via that subpoena, should could now subpoena them via discovery in the present case and they would have to be produced. Doing the subpoena did give Lively a legal edge because it allowed her team to plead with much more specificity as to the alleged wrongdoing and defendants. Without the Doe lawsuit, Lively would have had to go in nearly blind with her complaint regarding the retaliation allegations, which are the strongest part of her lawsuit. So it was a major advantage for them.
- There is zero evidence anywhere that Jones gave the texts to Lively/Reynolds in exchange for payment prior to the subpoena. We know that Jones shared one or more of the texts with Leslie Sloane (Lively/Reynolds publicist) almost immediately after seizing Jennifer Abel's phone, because Sloane texted Melissa Nathan about it. The most likely explanation for that is that Jones was simply mad and lashing out at Abel by sharing one or more damaging texts with Sloane, knowing of course that Sloane/Lively would be interested. There is no evidence at all that Jones was paid for this info, and she had a clear motive to share it other than getting money (i.e. to embarrass/expose Abel and Nathan).
- The movie in question is called It Ends With Us. This is Us is a television show starring Mandy Moore.