Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:24
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question: What would happen if you are a regular, normal Internet user (i.e. not a content creator) and you got subpoeaned and you just...ignored it?
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
Why, are you getting worried?
Yes, a little. I have shit talked them on their Instagrams, lol. I was also the Team JBer who expressed worry that they would come after commenters next, before they subpoeaned CCers, and for some reason people think that means I'm Team BL and I'm trying to suppress the discussion about this.
Thanks for being honest!
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:20
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lots of attempts at rationalizing by the Lovely posters over the past 12 hours. Is that one of the stages of grief?
It's funny because when Freedman does ridiculous things, the Baldoni supporters (1) do not admit it and (2) completely disappear from the board. So roast me if you like but at least I'm dealing with actual reality.
Freedman has been pretty hands off in recent weeks. You continue to be obsessed with him.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:18
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Lots of attempts at rationalizing by the Lovely posters over the past 12 hours. Is that one of the stages of grief?
It's funny because when Freedman does ridiculous things, the Baldoni supporters (1) do not admit it and (2) completely disappear from the board. So roast me if you like but at least I'm dealing with actual reality.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:17
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question: What would happen if you are a regular, normal Internet user (i.e. not a content creator) and you got subpoeaned and you just...ignored it?
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
Are you the person who said you would just voluntarily turn over your name?
Nope. See comment above.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:16
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question: What would happen if you are a regular, normal Internet user (i.e. not a content creator) and you got subpoeaned and you just...ignored it?
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
Why, are you getting worried?
Yes, a little. I have shit talked them on their Instagrams, lol. I was also the Team JBer who expressed worry that they would come after commenters next, before they subpoeaned CCers, and for some reason people think that means I'm Team BL and I'm trying to suppress the discussion about this.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:13
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Serious question: What would happen if you are a regular, normal Internet user (i.e. not a content creator) and you got subpoeaned and you just...ignored it?
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
Are you the person who said you would just voluntarily turn over your name?
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:12
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Serious question: What would happen if you are a regular, normal Internet user (i.e. not a content creator) and you got subpoeaned and you just...ignored it?
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
Why, are you getting worried?
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:11
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Lots of attempts at rationalizing by the Lovely posters over the past 12 hours. Is that one of the stages of grief?
I've stopped engaging with them and I'm just trying to ignore them now.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:08
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Serious question: What would happen if you are a regular, normal Internet user (i.e. not a content creator) and you got subpoeaned and you just...ignored it?
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
I'm not asking for some sort of abstract answer like, "You could get in trouble." I want the nitty gritty. I want to hear about the tangible consequences and sequence of events that would happen. e.g. TikTok/Reddit/X would pass along your information, then you'd get a letter from the court, then blah blah blah.
I must know!
Anonymous
07/22/2025 16:03
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Lots of attempts at rationalizing by the Lovely posters over the past 12 hours. Is that one of the stages of grief?
Anonymous
07/22/2025 15:00
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:I am going to admit that I don't really understand why Fritz was claiming that the CCs listed in their interrogatories were merely CCs that TAG had communicated with (which is the language the ROG originally used, "communicated with in any manner,") when this ROG was the subject of a motion to compel.
Baldoni wanted to limit the ROG to only CCs who had over 10K followers etc, but Lively refused. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.1.pdf (from docket entry 298).
The Judge's order at docket entry 355 required that they identify not just CCs "who can generate, create, or influence online content, but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer party." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf
So I do not understand Fritz claiming that their ROGs only name CCs TAG communicated with: "Without citation to any evidence, the Motion alleges that the individuals identified in the Interrogatory Responses “have spoken publicly about Ms. Lively and this lawsuit, apparently at the behest of TAG and the other Wayfarer Defendants.” (Dkt. 449, p. 2) (emphasis added). However, the Motion ignores the broad scope of the Interrogatories, which seeks the names of those with whom TAG has merely “communicated” concerning (among other topics) Lively, her allegations, or this lawsuit, from May 2024 through the present. (Dkt. 451-1, p. 12 – 14). That is why the Interrogatory Responses identify those to whom TAG has harmlessly provided quotes from the Wayfarer Parties’ counsel in response to media requests for formal statements in connection with legal developments herein, as Lively’s legal team has repeatedly done." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.460.0.pdf
I thought the "at the behest" of language was specifically related to what the judge required, re CCs who made content "directly or indirectly at the request of, or on behalf of, any Wayfarer Party."
Which is not to say any of the CCs Lively subpoenaed were in TAG's ROGs (or any except one), or that this wasn't a bad move by Hudson. I just think Fritz is kind of ignoring the language he was ordered to answer the ROGs with.
Tbh there was a lot of careful lawyerly wording in both Hudson's letter and Fritz's response, which has made it very frustrating to watch the online back and forth with people making exactly the intended assumptions that weren't actually stated lol. Hudson (seemingly) intended people to think all the Google etc subpoenas were based on the TAG ROG response, but in fact all she said was that BL needs the response de-designated so that she can explain to third parties why they got subpoenaed. (And the only third party who was outright cited as an example was Popcorn Planet dude, who received an individual subp in addition to being part of the Google subp.)
Meanwhile Fritz said their ROG response identifies "those to whom TAG has harmlessly provided quotes from the Wayfarer Parties’ counsel in response to media requests for formal statements" but does not say their response ONLY identifies such creators or that those creators are identified ONLY because they sought and received a statement. (As the previous poster notes, there were other criteria for being on the list ie engaging on SM at request or on behalf of Wayfarer parties.) And there's another sneakily worded bit where he says "TAG did not communicate with any Content Creators about this matter, or the underlying allegations, until 2025 when requests for comment were proffered"...but that does not preclude communicating with CCs in 2024 about how awful BL is and how they should tell everybody exactly that if they want to go mega-viral lol.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 13:35
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
I am going to admit that I don't really understand why Fritz was claiming that the CCs listed in their interrogatories were merely CCs that TAG had communicated with (which is the language the ROG originally used, "communicated with in any manner,") when this ROG was the subject of a motion to compel.
Baldoni wanted to limit the ROG to only CCs who had over 10K followers etc, but Lively refused. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.1.pdf (from docket entry 298).
The Judge's order at docket entry 355 required that they identify not just CCs "who can generate, create, or influence online content, but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer party." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf
So I do not understand Fritz claiming that their ROGs only name CCs TAG communicated with: "Without citation to any evidence, the Motion alleges that the individuals identified in the Interrogatory Responses “have spoken publicly about Ms. Lively and this lawsuit, apparently at the behest of TAG and the other Wayfarer Defendants.” (Dkt. 449, p. 2) (emphasis added). However, the Motion ignores the broad scope of the Interrogatories, which seeks the names of those with whom TAG has merely “communicated” concerning (among other topics) Lively, her allegations, or this lawsuit, from May 2024 through the present. (Dkt. 451-1, p. 12 – 14). That is why the Interrogatory Responses identify those to whom TAG has harmlessly provided quotes from the Wayfarer Parties’ counsel in response to media requests for formal statements in connection with legal developments herein, as Lively’s legal team has repeatedly done." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.460.0.pdf
I thought the "at the behest" of language was specifically related to what the judge required, re CCs who made content "directly or indirectly at the request of, or on behalf of, any Wayfarer Party."
Which is not to say any of the CCs Lively subpoenaed were in TAG's ROGs (or any except one), or that this wasn't a bad move by Hudson. I just think Fritz is kind of ignoring the language he was ordered to answer the ROGs with.
Baldoni wanted to limit the ROG to only CCs who had over 10K followers etc, but Lively refused. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.1.pdf (from docket entry 298).
The Judge's order at docket entry 355 required that they identify not just CCs "who can generate, create, or influence online content, but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer party." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf
So I do not understand Fritz claiming that their ROGs only name CCs TAG communicated with: "Without citation to any evidence, the Motion alleges that the individuals identified in the Interrogatory Responses “have spoken publicly about Ms. Lively and this lawsuit, apparently at the behest of TAG and the other Wayfarer Defendants.” (Dkt. 449, p. 2) (emphasis added). However, the Motion ignores the broad scope of the Interrogatories, which seeks the names of those with whom TAG has merely “communicated” concerning (among other topics) Lively, her allegations, or this lawsuit, from May 2024 through the present. (Dkt. 451-1, p. 12 – 14). That is why the Interrogatory Responses identify those to whom TAG has harmlessly provided quotes from the Wayfarer Parties’ counsel in response to media requests for formal statements in connection with legal developments herein, as Lively’s legal team has repeatedly done." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.460.0.pdf
I thought the "at the behest" of language was specifically related to what the judge required, re CCs who made content "directly or indirectly at the request of, or on behalf of, any Wayfarer Party."
Which is not to say any of the CCs Lively subpoenaed were in TAG's ROGs (or any except one), or that this wasn't a bad move by Hudson. I just think Fritz is kind of ignoring the language he was ordered to answer the ROGs with.
Anonymous
07/22/2025 01:00
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret? That just seems incredibly dumb. Having a hard time understanding this tbh.
Yeah her lawyers aren't above PR filings, but gambling on not getting unsealed would have been extremely dumb. And whatever you think of them they're not dumb. The only thing that makes sense to me is this was the opposite of a PR filing, ie they were counting on WF not opposing because they can't resist a "she lied!!!" moment. (Hudson's letter wasn't a lie, but it was misleading to the public, if not the court, if most of the subpoenaed SM accounts aren't on the ROG list.) I guess they're willing to endure that as a sort of sacrifice bunt and then the de-designation benefits them in a broader way? Alternatively, they desperately need this one ROG de-designated right away for reasons unrelated to SM subpoenas.... maybe related to the Popcorn Planet guy's individual subpoena?
But, look, maybe they were just dumb this time. Maybe they felt really affronted by popcorn planet guy's behavior and thought everyone would be on their side because he taped the receptionist?
Hudson seemed very huffy about that, which I thought was funny because what do you expect from content creators, they are literally attention seeking types (I'm rooting for most of them in their motions, but just saying). That's really the least of what you could expect from them. Perez posts on reddit (ugh) and someone said he should add an interrogatory with all the insults he has for Blake and list them lmao (his subpoena is directly to him asking for substantive information). I'm not sure if the non-parties can participate in the google meet and confers but that would be hilarious if they can and if they post details.
She also seemed very butthurt about AEO, which was something Freedman wanted the burden to be on the person designating, and as has been discussed here many times, Lively got her way on that - the parties can designate and they have to go to the judge to de-designate. And Hudson is all "they didn't even want that! and now they're using it!!! not cool!"
I really don't know what they were thinking, if there's some additional layer of strategy here. It kind of gives credence to the people who insist Blake and Ryan run the show because it just doesn't make sense strategically based on what we've seen. I love this case, there's some ridiculous twist almost every day.
A pro-Baldoni redditor I think has a theory that Lively just wanted to shut everybody up because protective orders will be imposed restricting what they can say for some period of time? That makes no sense to me because I thought the vast majority of these content creators were pretty small. And on the other end of that spectrum, is the judge really going to put a gag order on Candace Owens or the popcorn planet guy telling them they can't talk about the Badoni case? I doubt that. So that whole theory doesn't make sense to me either.
The protective order, continuing to wreak havoc on p.960+ of this thread. Yeah, that was petty of Hudson. (Game recognizes game on my part there.)
>>"I thought was funny because what do you expect from content creators, they are literally attention seeking types" lolol, true!
Anonymous
07/21/2025 23:50
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret? That just seems incredibly dumb. Having a hard time understanding this tbh.
Yeah her lawyers aren't above PR filings, but gambling on not getting unsealed would have been extremely dumb. And whatever you think of them they're not dumb. The only thing that makes sense to me is this was the opposite of a PR filing, ie they were counting on WF not opposing because they can't resist a "she lied!!!" moment. (Hudson's letter wasn't a lie, but it was misleading to the public, if not the court, if most of the subpoenaed SM accounts aren't on the ROG list.) I guess they're willing to endure that as a sort of sacrifice bunt and then the de-designation benefits them in a broader way? Alternatively, they desperately need this one ROG de-designated right away for reasons unrelated to SM subpoenas.... maybe related to the Popcorn Planet guy's individual subpoena?
But, look, maybe they were just dumb this time. Maybe they felt really affronted by popcorn planet guy's behavior and thought everyone would be on their side because he taped the receptionist?
Hudson seemed very huffy about that, which I thought was funny because what do you expect from content creators, they are literally attention seeking types (I'm rooting for most of them in their motions, but just saying). That's really the least of what you could expect from them. Perez posts on reddit (ugh) and someone said he should add an interrogatory with all the insults he has for Blake and list them lmao (his subpoena is directly to him asking for substantive information). I'm not sure if the non-parties can participate in the google meet and confers but that would be hilarious if they can and if they post details.
She also seemed very butthurt about AEO, which was something Freedman wanted the burden to be on the person designating, and as has been discussed here many times, Lively got her way on that - the parties can designate and they have to go to the judge to de-designate. And Hudson is all "they didn't even want that! and now they're using it!!! not cool!"
I really don't know what they were thinking, if there's some additional layer of strategy here. It kind of gives credence to the people who insist Blake and Ryan run the show because it just doesn't make sense strategically based on what we've seen. I love this case, there's some ridiculous twist almost every day.
Anonymous
07/21/2025 23:31
Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret? That just seems incredibly dumb. Having a hard time understanding this tbh.
Yeah her lawyers aren't above PR filings, but gambling on not getting unsealed would have been extremely dumb. And whatever you think of them they're not dumb. The only thing that makes sense to me is this was the opposite of a PR filing, ie they were counting on WF not opposing because they can't resist a "she lied!!!" moment. (Hudson's letter wasn't a lie, but it was misleading to the public, if not the court, if most of the subpoenaed SM accounts aren't on the ROG list.) I guess they're willing to endure that as a sort of sacrifice bunt and then the de-designation benefits them in a broader way? Alternatively, they desperately need this one ROG de-designated right away for reasons unrelated to SM subpoenas.... maybe related to the Popcorn Planet guy's individual subpoena?
But, look, maybe they were just dumb this time. Maybe they felt really affronted by popcorn planet guy's behavior and thought everyone would be on their side because he taped the receptionist? I don't know, it doesn't seem like a good plan to me, but I also don't want to refuse to accept defeat here when all the facts point toward kinda dumb.
Like, Lively is still nowhere near Freedman levels of dumb in legal filings of meet and confer behavior lol. Entire $400M complaint dismissed! So maybe this was a ridiculous thing to do here, but I will accept defeat here and move on. (And if some other reason for Hudson's filing is revealed, I will be grateful but extremely surprised!)