Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a nice summary courtesy of Reddit

1. ⁠In the example provided, lively herself admits in her May 16th email to wayfarer that the subpoena from Jones was INCOMPLETE. There were missing attachments and missing metadata. Hence, why freedman needs to go to the source to obtain EVERYTHING that was included
2. ⁠They also want to cross reference subpoenas. Why is jones handing over a subpoena that is missing attachments? It’s not fair that wayfarer only gets to look at a peak and not the entire thing.
3. ⁠Wayfarers lawyers are also asking for additional documents outside of what was provided in this May 16 email. Why you ask? Well VANZAN issued a subpoena for breach of contract, despite Abel and Jonesworks never having a contract with VANZAN, and not being named in the active case of DOES 1-10. So, what does VANZAN know that Abel and Jones don’t, since they’ve never been in contact with one another

Just pointing out that the breach of contract VanZan could have been looking at is a potential breach of contract by Wayfarer against Lively (perhaps there is some provision in her contract for the movie that might have been breached by a smear campaign against her as the move was coming out). It still makes the VanZan lawsuit a bit sketchy, unless VanZan was the entity who contracted with Wayfarer (actors generally use loan out companies for their film contracts for tax reasons, but I don't think VanZan was Lively's loan out company, I guess I could be wrong), but there's no reason to think the VanZan lawsuit was intended to investigate the contract between Abel and Jones -- obviously it wasn't, since Lively wasn't a party to that. The VanZan lawsuit was intended to obtain evidence of wrongdoing by Wayfarere/Baldoni/Abel/TAG against Lively, and to lead to to the lawsuit Lively ultimately filed. It was never about the employment issues between Abel and Jones, it just sought to benefit from those issues by obtaining the information that Jones had pulled from Abel's phone as a result of those issues.

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Agree with this, but wish Garafalo had explained it that way, because her letter did give the impression they didn't have it at all. She's asking for it from 3 different sources (Lively, Vanzan, and Jones) and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for it, but obviously the response was going to be "you have it already from Lively" so that should have been explained in her letter, that she only has it from Lively, who isn't a party in either Vanzan v. Doe or Jones v. Abel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Agree with this, but wish Garafalo had explained it that way, because her letter did give the impression they didn't have it at all. She's asking for it from 3 different sources (Lively, Vanzan, and Jones) and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for it, but obviously the response was going to be "you have it already from Lively" so that should have been explained in her letter, that she only has it from Lively, who isn't a party in either Vanzan v. Doe or Jones v. Abel.

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Anonymous wrote:Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents. The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue. In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant. And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions. Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

DP, I'm kinda disappointed because I liked the idea of a new, competent female attorney coming in and setting things straight. I will reserve full judgment until we get Garafalo's response to Manatt, and Jones' response to Garafolo, and I still hope the judge calls a hearing too. But, yes, since Liner represents both Abel and Wayfarer she should have anticipated and addressed that in her motion, so that's not great.

I just posted a response to this a few comments ago - Hudson is being clever with words. She states Lively turned over docs but Garofalo wants them from Vanzan. She also is asking for more info about who is associated with Vanzan. There’s also a letter from Freedman from May 16th noting the docs from Lively related to Vanzan are missing some data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

Garofalo does mention it and specifies she is looking for it to come from the direct source (Vanzan) and not indirectly from Lively. She also specified additional information that is being sought.

Here is what Garofalo's letter says in reference to Lively's production of exactly the same documents (in part) that Garofalo is asking from VanZan: "The Vanzan Subpoena opened the door for Lively to obtain the documents Jones extracted from Abel’s phone without notice to Abel or the Wayfarer Parties against whom Lively intended to use the information. Lively produced at least some of the information during discovery, confirming that the sham Vanzan Action was successful in facilitating the transfer of Abel’s data to Lively prior to the filing of Lively’s claims against Abel and the Wayfarer Parties."

This statement hides the ball that Lively produced both the subpoena and all of the documents Lively received from the subpoena to Liner Tatelmann already. "Lively produced at least some of the information during discovery" is hiding the ball that Lively already produced the subpoena and all the docs produced by Jonesworks, plain and simple.

It is clear from Lively's production letter from May that Lively's production included all the docs received from the Jones subpoena, which were what was requested by Freedman's doc requests, just as those docs were produced to her: "Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production contains a reproduction of documents that Ms. Lively received in response to a subpoena duces tecum to Jonesworks, LLC, dated October 1, 2024 (the 'Subpoena'), together with a copy of the Subpoena. Ms. Lively is reproducing the documents responsive to the Subpoena ('Jonesworks Documents') as she received them. For example, the Jonesworks Documents were produced to Ms. Lively without certain attachments and without the metadata contemplated in the subsequently negotiated Joint Stipulation on the Protocol for Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information and Hard Copy Documents, dated May 13, 2025 (Dkt. No. 212; 'ESI Stipulation'). While Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production reflects all metadata fields contemplated in the ESI Stipulation, certain of the fields are not populated because the Jonesworks Documents lacked corresponding metadata. And certain attachments are missing because the Jonesworks Documents did not include them."

The fact that Garofalo already had received the first two of the five categories of documents they had requested from both VanZan and Jones was buried and hidden in Garofalo's letter. I'm glad Lively clarified it, and it's super shady of Garofalo for doing that.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a nice summary courtesy of Reddit

1. ⁠In the example provided, lively herself admits in her May 16th email to wayfarer that the subpoena from Jones was INCOMPLETE. There were missing attachments and missing metadata. Hence, why freedman needs to go to the source to obtain EVERYTHING that was included
2. ⁠They also want to cross reference subpoenas. Why is jones handing over a subpoena that is missing attachments? It’s not fair that wayfarer only gets to look at a peak and not the entire thing.
3. ⁠Wayfarers lawyers are also asking for additional documents outside of what was provided in this May 16 email. Why you ask? Well VANZAN issued a subpoena for breach of contract, despite Abel and Jonesworks never having a contract with VANZAN, and not being named in the active case of DOES 1-10. So, what does VANZAN know that Abel and Jones don’t, since they’ve never been in contact with one another

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

Garofalo does mention it and specifies she is looking for it to come from the direct source (Vanzan) and not indirectly from Lively. She also specified additional information that is being sought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.

But nothing else they are seeking. They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.

Nothing else besides the subpoena? WRONG! Lively sent both the subpoena and all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena, in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents. When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it. They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too. How many parties does she need to receive these documents from? Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion? ?????????

DP, I'm kinda disappointed because I liked the idea of a new, competent female attorney coming in and setting things straight. I will reserve full judgment until we get Garafalo's response to Manatt, and Jones' response to Garafolo, and I still hope the judge calls a hearing too. But, yes, since Liner represents both Abel and Wayfarer she should have anticipated and addressed that in her motion, so that's not great.