Anonymous
Post 07/31/2025 11:00     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Hard to tell due to the redaction, but it appears the new jurisdiction argument is based on the allegation that Wallace “helped” in the drafting of Baldoni’s counterclaim.

Perhaps in the bizarro world of Liman, this is somehow actionable. What it does emphasize is that Blake still hasn’t found new evidence of a “smear” prior to the date she filed her complaint.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2025 10:28     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Hilarious reddit comment on the new complaint:

Grab your friends, wear your florals, and join me in collectively hold our breath as we await Charles Babcock's reply to Veruca VanSham's deliciously redacted, but never with teeth, amended complaint against Jed Wallace. Because, let's be real, what's more thrilling than a legal document that screams "we've got secrets, but you can't have them... yet"?


So hilarious of Gottlieb to redact the confidential and AEO information that other parties and third parties requested he keep confidential! He is such a trickster. I also noticed that he actually filed an amended complaint, which I thought was weird because I thought the normal practice here was to say you would file one to lure folks into staying up til midnight for it and to then file nothing except a google doc with popcorn planet guy the next day. This filing really threw me!

I thought it was interesting from yesterday's hearing that Gottlieb is still going in hard against Wallace (despite Wallace's declaration claiming no active smearing) and saying in court that they believed that Wallace basically ran the smear with help from Freedman. Also think the revised complaint is saying that Wallace was still working on the project after November 2024 (looking hard at the redacted areas) and that Wallace would have been aware of the NY based activities of Case and Koslow, which seems to suggest Gottlieb obtained some discovery from the latter with Wallace's name on it.
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2025 01:25     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Hilarious reddit comment on the new complaint:

Grab your friends, wear your florals, and join me in collectively hold our breath as we await Charles Babcock's reply to Veruca VanSham's deliciously redacted, but never with teeth, amended complaint against Jed Wallace. Because, let's be real, what's more thrilling than a legal document that screams "we've got secrets, but you can't have them... yet"?
Anonymous
Post 07/31/2025 00:00     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
11:59 PM and there's a letter from Gottlieb about sealing portions of the amended complaint due to including quotes from Confidential discovery. Complaint is not up yet.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 21:27     Subject: Re:Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Maybe BL attorneys just pushing as far as can go on discovery in hopes for better settlement position but with JB now without a cross case, curious if JB would even settle at this point or if he wants to just spend $ on his defense v pay it out to BL as settlement.


I doubt he is open to paying her anything, she could just cut her losses. Sue is probably paying $1 to 2 million a month in attorney’s fees.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 20:42     Subject: Re:Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Maybe BL attorneys just pushing as far as can go on discovery in hopes for better settlement position but with JB now without a cross case, curious if JB would even settle at this point or if he wants to just spend $ on his defense v pay it out to BL as settlement.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 20:16     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
It’s not as if the judge would ever accuse Blake of delay.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 19:54     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:It's possible she just walks away from this lawsuit in two weeks time, or whenever the fact discovery period ends. It's pretty obvious that they have nothing on the "smear" campaign and they are running out of discovery options.

I'm really curious to see if they file anything with respect to Wallace tonight.


We still don't know exactly on what basis that last minute hearing was called before her last depo - nothing was on the docket and the transcripts take months to post, but the live tweet indicated Gottlieb called it because he was thanking Liman for the last minute hearing. Gottlieb was coming up with some pretty crazy ideas to keep Wallace in as a party, like having the judge vacate his order dismissing Wallace and re-issue it after the depo. This was to ensure Lively didn't have to sit for multiple depositions.

On that basis it seems likely that an amended complaint will tonight naming him, or else that prior hearing and cancelling her depo at the last minute will come off as a time-wasting maneuver. I tend to think they'll file one.

Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 19:38     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
It's possible she just walks away from this lawsuit in two weeks time, or whenever the fact discovery period ends. It's pretty obvious that they have nothing on the "smear" campaign and they are running out of discovery options.

I'm really curious to see if they file anything with respect to Wallace tonight.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 19:09     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.


She’s not getting deposed. It’s not happening. I think it’s cute when lawyers are like, “lol she HAS to get deposed whether she wants to or not.” She’s just not. This whole lawsuit is a farce.


PP Now, of course, I don't know her master plan. It could entail her hoping to get what she wants out of discovery (she won't; there was no smear campaign), leaking it, then withdrawing the lawsuit out of duress. Only her and her crackhead husband know what their next steps are, but a deposition is not in the cards.


I have always thought these sorts of theories were nutty, no offense, but I kind of see this being possible now. That's actually a pretty good theory that she wanted to find stuff and just leak it to rehab her image. She could have just filed a bunch of motions appending the various proof of payments or bots or seeding and then worked with legacy media to push it out. It actually sort of explains some of these ridiculous subpoenas were out of desperation. Note they referred to 107 content creators in court today, not the 43 we know about. Maybe they put out the idea the content creators were on the TAG list because they thought people would get scared and comply before it was made public. Ouch.

I just always sort of felt and argued that Lively's lawyers must have explained to her what litigation means and how nasty it gets and that she would have to understand that you have to be deposed and turn over texts and all that. We'll see. I'm 50/50 on her deposition happening. I have a feeling it won't happen tomorrow because why ruin her record of making Wayfarer counsel fly out to NY and then not doing it? I will say in her defense that some of Wayfarer parties claimed not to even be available until August, and AFAIK none of them have been deposed either (possibly the Wallace parties have) so it's not entirely fair to blame Lively for not having done hers yet.


She's the one suing them. Not fair to say, "We'll, they're dragging their feet, too." Of course they are.

I usually don't believe nutty conspiracy theories, so I didn't pull that theory out of my ass, and I've always been on the face over whether she truly planned to sue him. Most JB supporters actually believe she never intended to. But anyways, 1) all of Blake's actions so far tell me she's going to avoid doing this 2) Lively getting deposed just doesn't sound like a thing that will happen, you know what I mean? As irrational as that sounds. Same with Taylor Swift -- you just knew she was never going to get deposed. These celebs are powerful enough and rich enough and pampered enough that you know they're going to stop this from happening.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 19:06     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.


She’s not getting deposed. It’s not happening. I think it’s cute when lawyers are like, “lol she HAS to get deposed whether she wants to or not.” She’s just not. This whole lawsuit is a farce.


PP Now, of course, I don't know her master plan. It could entail her hoping to get what she wants out of discovery (she won't; there was no smear campaign), leaking it, then withdrawing the lawsuit out of duress. Only her and her crackhead husband know what their next steps are, but a deposition is not in the cards.


I have always thought these sorts of theories were nutty, no offense, but I kind of see this being possible now. That's actually a pretty good theory that she wanted to find stuff and just leak it to rehab her image. She could have just filed a bunch of motions appending the various proof of payments or bots or seeding and then worked with legacy media to push it out. It actually sort of explains some of these ridiculous subpoenas were out of desperation. Note they referred to 107 content creators in court today, not the 43 we know about. Maybe they put out the idea the content creators were on the TAG list because they thought people would get scared and comply before it was made public. Ouch.

I just always sort of felt and argued that Lively's lawyers must have explained to her what litigation means and how nasty it gets and that she would have to understand that you have to be deposed and turn over texts and all that. We'll see. I'm 50/50 on her deposition happening. I have a feeling it won't happen tomorrow because why ruin her record of making Wayfarer counsel fly out to NY and then not doing it? I will say in her defense that some of Wayfarer parties claimed not to even be available until August, and AFAIK none of them have been deposed either (possibly the Wallace parties have) so it's not entirely fair to blame Lively for not having done hers yet.


The person bringing the suit has a different burden.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 19:04     Subject: Re:Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Request for TLDR summary- when judge says “ if Numbers 1 to 4 are no longer at issue, you have won, Mr. Gottlieb,” what are the numbers referencing? Discovery production questions? What is it that Gottlieb will have won?


I wonder if this was a transcription error and the judge said
“You have none” which would have been repeating what he had been told by Garafalo.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 18:50     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.


She’s not getting deposed. It’s not happening. I think it’s cute when lawyers are like, “lol she HAS to get deposed whether she wants to or not.” She’s just not. This whole lawsuit is a farce.


PP Now, of course, I don't know her master plan. It could entail her hoping to get what she wants out of discovery (she won't; there was no smear campaign), leaking it, then withdrawing the lawsuit out of duress. Only her and her crackhead husband know what their next steps are, but a deposition is not in the cards.


I have always thought these sorts of theories were nutty, no offense, but I kind of see this being possible now. That's actually a pretty good theory that she wanted to find stuff and just leak it to rehab her image. She could have just filed a bunch of motions appending the various proof of payments or bots or seeding and then worked with legacy media to push it out. It actually sort of explains some of these ridiculous subpoenas were out of desperation. Note they referred to 107 content creators in court today, not the 43 we know about. Maybe they put out the idea the content creators were on the TAG list because they thought people would get scared and comply before it was made public. Ouch.

I just always sort of felt and argued that Lively's lawyers must have explained to her what litigation means and how nasty it gets and that she would have to understand that you have to be deposed and turn over texts and all that. We'll see. I'm 50/50 on her deposition happening. I have a feeling it won't happen tomorrow because why ruin her record of making Wayfarer counsel fly out to NY and then not doing it? I will say in her defense that some of Wayfarer parties claimed not to even be available until August, and AFAIK none of them have been deposed either (possibly the Wallace parties have) so it's not entirely fair to blame Lively for not having done hers yet.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 18:39     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.


She’s not getting deposed. It’s not happening. I think it’s cute when lawyers are like, “lol she HAS to get deposed whether she wants to or not.” She’s just not. This whole lawsuit is a farce.


PP Now, of course, I don't know her master plan. It could entail her hoping to get what she wants out of discovery (she won't; there was no smear campaign), leaking it, then withdrawing the lawsuit out of duress. Only her and her crackhead husband know what their next steps are, but a deposition is not in the cards.
Anonymous
Post 07/30/2025 18:33     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:Any bets on whether Lively will be deposed or not tomorrow?

Also, don’t engage with the bot, better to just ignore than engage.


She’s not getting deposed. It’s not happening. I think it’s cute when lawyers are like, “lol she HAS to get deposed whether she wants to or not.” She’s just not. This whole lawsuit is a farce.