Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Its seven. None appear to be legal. I noticed some screen names referring to spirituality.

But really, how could Lively’s attorneys not think this would backfire? They KNOW what names are on the list.

If the rumors are to be believed , Ryan wanted to get aggressive and drive the case. And he did, right over a cliff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Reddit shared the filings for Google, X and TikTok

I follow a few TikTok creators covering this case and none of the major ones are listed among the 7

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/Vp8Ayo3GmI

Curious as to any insights on any of the CC. Like, do these CC claim to have blind items or give iinside information, or is it strictly their opinions? I know Perez was asked about blind items.

Anonymous wrote:Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Its seven. None appear to be legal. I noticed some screen names referring to spirituality.

But really, how could Lively’s attorneys not think this would backfire? They KNOW what names are on the list.

Anonymous wrote:Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Reddit shared the filings for Google, X and TikTok

I follow a few TikTok creators covering this case and none of the major ones are listed among the 7

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/Vp8Ayo3GmI

Blake has also subpoena TikTok, no info yet on how many additional ccs. What an unmitigated pr disaster for Blake!

Anonymous wrote:Lol go Fritz. I had predicted it was just Popcorn Planet. It’s hard to believe Lively’s attorneys are this dumb but it seems that every time they do something for PR it backfires on them, like that would Taylor Swift motion.

Saw something on TikTok that basically said the Lively team was winning the legal game but the WF team was winning the PR game.

PR expert Molly McPherson also said that someone on Blake’s team must hate her because they are advising her so poorly.

https://www.tiktok.com/@mollybmcpherson/video/7527060229335436574

Lol go Fritz. I had predicted it was just Popcorn Planet. Its hard to believe Lively’s attorneys are this dumb but it seems that every time they do something for PR it backfires on them, like that would Taylor Swift motion.

Anonymous wrote:WF responds to Blake’s motion to remove the AEO designation concerning the cc interrogatory by removing it. And with that, making a mockery of Lively’s motion as only one of the 40 plus cc they subpoenaed was identified.

Bravo!!! I just posted about this too!

Interesting update per Reddit: Wayfarer attorneys shutting down the speculation⬇️

The Social Media Subpoenas seek all account information, including phone number and financial information, for specific “Content Creators” only one of which is listed in the Interrogatory Responses.

This statement is from the sworn declaration from Kevin Fritz.

WF responds to Blake’s motion to remove the AEO designation concerning the cc interrogatory by removing it. And with that, making a mockery of Lively’s motion as only one of the 40 plus cc they subpoenaed was identified.

Another day another docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70867419/harco-national-insurance-company-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

TLDR: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/it-ends-with-us-insurer-lawsuit-justin-baldoni-legal-fees-1236324754/
Wayfarer’s insurer for the film, Harco National Insurance, filed a lawsuit in New York federal court on Monday seeking a court order that it has no duty to pay legal fees for the production company or its officers. It says that the alleged misconduct occurred before the effective date of the policy and that it wasn’t informed of Blake Lively‘s complaints, a precursor to the sprawling litigation, during the filming of the movie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Wayfarer have standing to intervene in support of the content creators' motion to quash?

No. Only grounds would be privilege and there's no possible way to assert privilege over the creators' Google account subscriber information.

Adding that this is true for the subpoenas to Google, X, and any other platforms seeking account info. Wayfarer theoretically could move to intervene in support of MTQs filed by the three creators (Candace O., Andy S., Perez H.) who received more extensive individual subpoenas for comms etc. For Perez I guess they could assert attorney-client privilege. For the other two, they could assert work product if they brought them on board as litigation-related contractors. But that in itself would be a pretty huge admission.

Anonymous wrote:Does Wayfarer have standing to intervene in support of the content creators' motion to quash?

No. Only grounds would be privilege and there's no possible way to assert privilege over the creators' Google account subscriber information.

Liman has set an in-person oral argument (damn! But hopefully it will be live-tweeted) for July 30th on the motion to quash Lively's subpoena to Freedman's firm.

Does Wayfarer have standing to intervene in support of the content creators' motion to quash?