Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Yeah, let's believe Gottlieb over Freedman even though they're the legal team using fake subpoenas.

[Anonymous]

Story now also posted by TMZ. Notactuallygolden also just posted a new video about it.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/05/14/blake-lively-strongarm-taylor-swift-public-support-justin-baldoni-feud-lawyer-claims/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.

It is actually going down just as I would expect. Someone on Taylor’s team likely tipped off Freedman, the rest is window dressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gottlieb is repudiating Freedman's witness tampering claims very strongly. From TMZ:

"This is categorically false. We unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations, which are cowardly sourced to supposed anonymous sources, and completely untethered from reality. This is what we have come to expect from the Wayfarer parties’ lawyers, who appear to love nothing more than shooting first, without any evidence, and with no care for the people they are harming in the process. We will imminently file motions with the court to hold these attorneys accountable for their misconduct here."

I'm the one upthread who was being cautious because Gottlieb's not the kind of lawyer I'd expect to get caught up in something like this. He has zero motivation to risk his career for something so dumb.

I am inclined to believe him. I think this is a PR ploy/trick from Freedman. I've seen arguments on Reddit that this is Freedman trying to draw Taylor out and force her to comment publicly. If she comes out and backs up Lively and says "this is ridiculous," Freedman could use that public statement to get her drawn into the litigation ("see, she is one of Blake's dragons, look how she defends her").

I think this is bait, both for JB fans who love the red meat and for Swift who is trying very hard to stay as far from this tawdry mess as possible.

Disagree. Freedman is no angel and does play hardball but he wouldn’t outright lie. His letter specifically mentions working with Venable in good faith. Venable is Taylor’s legal team.

All we can do is wait and see what drops.

Maybe. I think he would not consider it a lie as long as he had some kind of source. But how reliable is that source? I do think it's weird that it's anonymous, plus who would actually have this info? It would have to be someone who worked for Lively, Taylor, or their lawyers. No one else would know. If it was the lawyers that person would be fired immediately upon this being revealed, so I just don't think so. Taylor doesn't tolerate leaks like this and her team is incredibly loyal and wouldn't go telling stories to Freedman even if Taylor is really mad at Blake.

So basically it would have to be someone in Blake's personal orbit (seems unlikely) or Taylor Swift herself (seems even more unlikely). I think it's possible the "source" is "internet speculators" or someone not credible, in which case Freedman still gets his desired news cycle but can blame the source if it turns out the allegation is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.

It is actually going down just as I would expect. Someone on Taylor’s team likely tipped off Freedman, the rest is window dressing.

Without Taylor's say so? I don't believe it. Her team doesn't leak and they are totally loyal to Taylor and Taylor alone. And to tip them off at the same time Taylor and her lawyers are aggressively trying to stop the subpoena?

I just don't believe it. It doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let's believe Gottlieb over Freedman even though they're the legal team using fake subpoenas.

Gottlieb didn't file the VanZan case though. He came on later after that had already happened (Manatt filed it, and they have a more longstanding relationship with Lively/Reynolds).

Gottlieb has a good rep as a litigator. I don't believe he'd try to extort a witness to make a public statement on behalf of his client by threatening to release damaging info about them. Especially not Taylor Swift. He's not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.

It is actually going down just as I would expect. Someone on Taylor’s team likely tipped off Freedman, the rest is window dressing.

Without Taylor's say so? I don't believe it. Her team doesn't leak and they are totally loyal to Taylor and Taylor alone. And to tip them off at the same time Taylor and her lawyers are aggressively trying to stop the subpoena?

I just don't believe it. It doesn't make sense.

It would be with Taylor’s say so. If Blake was threatening her with release of embarrassing texts, this is exactly how to nullify the threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.

It is actually going down just as I would expect. Someone on Taylor’s team likely tipped off Freedman, the rest is window dressing.

Without Taylor's say so? I don't believe it. Her team doesn't leak and they are totally loyal to Taylor and Taylor alone. And to tip them off at the same time Taylor and her lawyers are aggressively trying to stop the subpoena?

I just don't believe it. It doesn't make sense.

It could only come from Taylor’s team - no one else would dare and BF wouldn’t take the chance on info from an anonymous source. It has to be credible aka Venable for him to be this specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.

It is actually going down just as I would expect. Someone on Taylor’s team likely tipped off Freedman, the rest is window dressing.

Without Taylor's say so? I don't believe it. Her team doesn't leak and they are totally loyal to Taylor and Taylor alone. And to tip them off at the same time Taylor and her lawyers are aggressively trying to stop the subpoena?

I just don't believe it. It doesn't make sense.

It would be with Taylor’s say so. If Blake was threatening her with release of embarrassing texts, this is exactly how to nullify the threat.

And to stay above the fray. Which is how Taylor rolls.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was notable that there was no mention of the attorney work product privilege in the Venable opposition. Only relevance and burdensome, both of which can easily be addressed by narrowing a request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.

It is actually going down just as I would expect. Someone on Taylor’s team likely tipped off Freedman, the rest is window dressing.

Without Taylor's say so? I don't believe it. Her team doesn't leak and they are totally loyal to Taylor and Taylor alone. And to tip them off at the same time Taylor and her lawyers are aggressively trying to stop the subpoena?

I just don't believe it. It doesn't make sense.

It would be with Taylor’s say so. If Blake was threatening her with release of embarrassing texts, this is exactly how to nullify the threat.

And to stay above the fray. Which is how Taylor rolls.

Yes. Taylor wants out of this yesterday and she will put herself above Blake every single day, as she should.

Taylor is also massively protective of her image/reputation and this gives her cover to exit - “she had no choice”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was notable that there was no mention of the attorney work product privilege in the Venable opposition. Only relevance and burdensome, both of which can easily be addressed by narrowing a request.

I thought the reason they didn't assert A-C privilege is that the subpoena sought communications from Lively's lawyers. In that case the privilege wouldn't be Taylor's or Venable's to assert. But Lively's lawyers did assert it in their motion to intervene.

[Anonymous]

At this point it's pretty wild to me that either:

1) Michael Gottlieb tried to extort Taylor Swift and is not lying about it publicly

OR

2) Bryan Freedman has alleged a blatant and consequential lie about another attorney in a filing to a judge.

W.O.W.

And my husband wonders why I bother following this case. Come on! This is drama.

[Anonymous]

^now lying about it publicly, typo

[Anonymous]

People now has it up too and the headline is not favorable to Blake. Check the headline and what is holder/big vs what isn’t!

No statement or comments yet from Taylor.

If what Freedman alleges is untrue then Venable will make a statement or file a response. Let’s see what happens.

https://people.com/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-support-justin-baldoni-claims-11733062

Blake Lively Threatened to Leak Taylor Swift Texts If Singer Didn't Publicly Support Her, Claim Justin Baldoni's Lawyers

"We unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations," Lively's attorney tells PEOPLE in a statement.