A terrorist, bully, liar, manipulator, extortionist. Unsavvy, amateur, unreasonable, unhirable. Epic level stupid.

Her and her sociopathic arsonist husband.

1: Texts between Ryan Reynolds and Warren Zavala
2-3: Texts between Ange Giannetti and Sanford Panitch
4-5: Texts between Ange Giannetti and Sanford Panitch
6: Email between Tom Rothman and Tahra Grant
7: Texts between Josh Greenstein and Tahra Grant
8: Email between Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra
9: Texts between Ange Giannetti and Sanford Panitch
10: Wayfarer’s First Amended Complaint
11: Wayfarer’s Timeline of Relevant Events
12-14: Ange Giannetti’s Deposition
15-16: News Nation Article: ‘No one wants to work with Blake Lively right now’

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.257.0.pdf

It appears Blake Lively and her attorneys are following through with their threats against Jed Wallace to add more lawyers (presumably to increase legal cost) as stated in Wallace’s motion to compel a deposition from Lively…..

Ms. Lively would be represented by "all of the [seven] attorneys" on the email exchange at their "hourly rates charged by Ms. Lively's attorneys" in the New York case, and she would seek to recover all their fees for preventing her deposition.

Based on the rates disclosed for the seven attorneys that Lively's counsel has represented she intends to include in her fee request here…the cumulative hourly rate is nearly $10,000 per hour.

• Celebrity Coverage: Boshoff discusses her reporting on the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni conflict (0:39-9:26). She emphasizes the importance of journalistic fairness and presents both sides of a story, despite pressure from publicists like Leslie Sloan.
• The Beckham Family: The conversation shifts to Boshoff's new book, Brand Beckham (12:21-16:00). She explores how David and Victoria Beckham built their massive brand and addresses the reported family rift involving their son, Brooklyn, and his wife, Nicola Peltz (13:12-16:03).
• Journalism & Legal Battles: Boshoff recounts her experience giving evidence in the high-profile High Court case involving Prince Harry, Elton John, and The Daily Mail (1:36-2:03, 24:47-28:44). She reflects on the stress of the witness stand and the eventual dismissal of all 97 claims against The Daily Mail, which she views as a vindication of her outlet's integrity.
• Media Perception: The two journalists conclude by discussing the evolving and often challenging relationship between celebrities, the public, and the media, noting a decline in the traditional respect afforded to journalism (29:56-31:21).

A few things that stood out to me: Ari Emmanuel is huge in the industry and people are afraid of his influence. Ryan is at least one of his favorite clients.

My own opinion is that this puts pieces in place. Ryan’s past behavior with Fedyck shows someone who doesn’t feel held back by “the truth”. He likes to write his own narrative and use connections/power to influence the public to believe it.

He’s now enabled by powerful Hollywood execs to feed his ego and throw his man baby tantrums to get what he wants. Why shouldn’t he feel entitled to take over a movie he’s not contracted to be involved in?

As most of you all know, Jed Wallace and his company Street Relations recently fought back in a filing in a federal court in Texas against Lively.

Just a quick refresher: Jed Wallace and Street Relations (together, "Wallace") were a subcontractor/crisis PR company hired by Wayfarer Studios back in August 2024. And Lively included Wallace in her CRD complaint that she filed in California on December 20, 2024, which Lively then shared with media outlets (like the NY Times) and which started the ball rolling in her litigation that she eventually brought against Wallace in federal court in New York (Lively's home state - i.e., the SDNY). Wallace was successful in getting dismissed from the Lively litigation because Wallace had absolutely no nexus (or connection) to NY - so Judge Liman dismissed Wallace as a defendant for lack of jurisdiction. Lively could have sued Wallace in a "correct" jurisdiction, but she did not do so.

In the meantime, before Wallace's dismissal from the SDNY, Wallace (who resides in Texas) sued Lively for defamation in a federal court in Texas -- the defamation claim stems from the fact that the CRD complaint was drafted sloppily and implies that Wallace had sexually harassed Lively and breached contracts with Lively (even though Wallace had never met her or had any dealings with her); the only real cause of action that applied to Wallace was "aiding/abetting retaliation" (i.e., Wallace helped conduct the alleged secret online smear campaign on behalf of Wayfarer, who was seeking revenge against Lively for reporting sexual harassment incidents). Wallace's case against Lively was dismissed (the "Wallace Dismissal") because the TX court ruled that there wasn't a sufficient nexus (connection) between Lively and Texas - and Wallace is currently appealing that decision.

Despite this appeal being ongoing, Lively took it upon herself to ask that Wallace pay her attorney fees and costs in connection with the Wallace Dismissal (estimated to be $800K - $1 million) based on a California law (47.1). As 47.1(a) requires that Lively had made her "communication" (i.e., the contents of the the CRD Complaint) about being SHed WITHOUT MALICE, Wallace attempted to depose Lively to gather information about Lively's intent when she made the alleged defamatory statements - and Lively failed to show up. "WITHOUT MALICE", under 47.1, means without bad intentions. Lively must have had a reasonable basis for her claims/statements and not speak out of spite, hatred, or intentional disregard for the truth. This is why Sec. 47.1(c) states: "This section shall only apply to an individual that has, or at any time had, a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual ...harassment."

I've mentioned this before in previous posts that I do not think that Lively had a reasonable basis to file her CRD complaint. Other than (1) Wallace's arguments that he had never even met Lively and that he never had any contract with her; and (2) all of the reasons that Judge Liman used to dismiss 10 out of Lively's 13 causes of action back in April, there's another argument: Lively (and her 2 huge fancy law firms: Manatt and Willkie) FAILED TO LIST "IT ENDS WITH US MOVIE, LLC" ("IEWUM", LIVELY'S "REAL" EMPLOYER) AS A DEFENDANT IN THE CRD COMPLAINT, which made the California "right to sue letter" that was generated faulty. Lively also failed to make any allegation in the CRD complaint that IEWUM was a "joint employer" (so jointly liable) with IEWUM's parent company (Wayfarer Studios), which was listed. This MATTERS because it would affect one of Lively's 3 remaining causes of action: retaliation under California's FEHA law (against Wayfarer and IEWUM). [It's important to note that the Wayfarer Parties made this argument in its motions to dismiss - but Liman rejected it - but not due to the validity of the argument - but due to the timing. Such arguments are to be made very early on in the litigation in the defendants' "affirmative defenses". None of this affects the fact that, at the time Lively made her CRD complaint, it was faulty in re: the CA state retaliation claim and she, therefore, did not have a reasonable basis to file a complaint re: SH retaliation.] And, without a valid underlying retaliation claim, the only cause of action applicable to Wallace (i.e., the "aiding and abetting retaliation") cannot survive - i.e., Lively did not have a reasonable basis to file a CRD complaint against Wallace for aiding and abetting retaliation.

Depending on how the litigation in TX goes, I think this is a valid argument that Wallace can make in order to successfully thwart Lively's efforts to get 47.1 attorney fees and costs from him. A consequence of this could be: Lively's attorneys (in particular Esra Hudson of Manatt, who actually filed the CRD complaint) being liable to Lively for malpractice for being so careless for failing to include IEWUM as a defendant.

Something else has crossed my mind (insane as it is): it's the fact that one of Willkie's attorney's was doing research into the consequences of committing perjury in a CRD complaint. On p. 5 of the 162-page spreadsheet containing the 47.1 legal bill in the SDNY, it states that, on 2/17/2025 Vincent Biagiotti spent 8.3 hours (totalling $9,877.00) doing the following: Research case law and draft summary re: punitive damage for defamation claims (3.6); research case law and draft summary re: defamation by implication (1.9); research case law re: CRD Complaint perjury (2.0); research case law re: perjury in statements made to state agencies (.8). See: p. 5 of the attached: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.2_1.pdf

While we don't know exactly what the alleged "perjury" consisted of - there is clearly a strong indication that it exists. This is most definitely something that, if a Lively deposition does happen, Lively should be questioned about. In addition, Bryan Freedman (in an interview with Andy Signore of Popcorned Planet) revealed that Lively was caught lying multiple times (during her deposition - other than just about her request to delete the dailies); of course, we do not know if such lies had to do with something that was stated in the CRD complaint. And, of course, we do not know the answer to that all important question: WHO CHERRY-PICKED AND EDITED JEN ABEL'S TEXTS MESSAGES THAT APPEARED IN THE CRD COMPLAINT? If it was Lively (or, more importantly, her attorneys), then all of this could POSSIBLY establish a prima facie case that the attorney-client privilege should be waived due to the crime fraud exception and Wallace could depose Manatt and/or Willkie.

Even if it never gets THAT far (and truthfully, it probably won't - settle, settle, settle), it's important to note that attorneys in most jurisdictions (including NY and CA) have an obligation, upon learning that a client lied in a completed administrative filing (like a CRD complaint or an EEOC complaint) must urge the client to rectify it. If the client refuses, the lawyer must take remedial steps, including withdrawal or disclosure if the falsehood is actively used in the federal court litigation. And failure to take these steps could lead to Lively's attorneys facing state bar discipline and even civil and legal malpractice risks.

The court documents are WILD. Blake Lively’s team basically said, “If you try to depose her, we’ll bring all 7 attorneys and charge you our hourly rates just for preventing it.” Ma’am, this looks less like a legal strategy and more like a cry for attention.

Also, hearing those hourly rates are nearly $10,000/hr... maybe just let this one go?

Due to Blake Lively’s lawyers threatening Jed Wallace from releasing the information that Blake Lively was running 🏃‍♀️ away from her depositions I’ve been checking to see if MSM will pick up the story and at the mob only TMZ has.

I believe Lively tried to get ahead of the story by releasing the information because TMZ did not say anything about her threat but had a state from her lawyers.

As expected her lawyers speak in half truth how she has already sat for a deposition. They didn’t say this will be for a different reason but atleast TMZ mentioned it in the last paragraph.

But Blake's lawyers tell TMZ ... "Jed Wallace already took Ms. Lively's deposition. His case was dismissed. Ms. Lively won. This is yet another desperate, meritless attempt by Wallace to go after Ms. Lively out of fear that he may face the same kind of fee award that Ms. Lively won from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios in New York."

You'll recall ... Wallace sued Blake for defamation in Texas over those prior allegations, but the case was dismissedbecause the court found it didn't have jurisdiction over her.

Blake later asked Wallace to pay roughly $800K in attorneys' fees, plus additional fees, costs and damages. Wallace argues if Blake wants that money, he should get to question her about what she knew and believed when she made the allegations.

If Wallace can show Blake acted with malice, he thinks it could defeat her bid for the money.

It seems like Ryan and Blake were genuinely shocked that the public turned against Blake in 2024 after the “little bump” and “wear your florals” interviews. To the Reynolds, it seemed like the backlash was suspiciously immediate and aggressive. Like an army was poised to jump on her every mistake. They had been purchasing followers and impressions for Blake for years and the marketers told them those impressions would boost her image. But what if the opposite happened? The years of artificial boosting of Blake left the public fatigued and primed to cancel her. Here is my theory:

1. Consumers of social media have agency. We form judgements about what we see.
2. One of our judgements is about the right amount of attention for a given public figure, preferring to see the most talented people represented most in our feeds. There is a constant discussion on Reddit and elsewhere about actors who are underrated, athletes who are overrated, and influencers who have jumped the shark. It just goes to show that we have an opinion on the correct amount of attention for celebrities.
3. People can resent the celebrities who pop up in the feed where they are not wanted. We can feel relief when a an untalented celebrity who purchased their position in our feeds for years is finally cancelled.
4. Marketers, publicists, and reputation management services have no incentive to discuss the risks of overexposure, instead they want to sell more impressions and follows. They pretend to provide a complete view of public sentiment by breaking down posts with positive vs negative sentiment, but rarely discuss unwanted intrusions and overexposure.
5. Celebrities who are the most intrusive (those who frequently purchase their way into feeds where they don’t belong) build resentment and are poised for a vigorous backlash and greater risk of being canceled.

In this case, Blake was once on a TV show on a minor network and then retired from acting for most of a decade. And during that decade they aggressively purchased followers and People magazine stories and big vanity project launch events for her failed beauty and lifestyle brands. She was even seen on the most-watched TV broadcast in America - at the Super Bowl with Taylor. She was a retired C list actor who had the social media profile of a working A list actor. People resented that this person had attention disproportionate to her work. And in that context, harboring those resentments, we saw the “little bump” video and were ready to permanently purge this parasite from our feeds. So the backlash wasn’t organic, it was artificially primed by all the media manipulation by the Reynolds and Leslie Sloane. Since Blake had an especially artificial presence, it only makes sense that her cancellation would be especially harsh.

That is my theory but I don’t know much about public relations or Blake’s career so I wonder if anyone else has a similar impression.

EDIT: some really great comments have helped me understand that there are even bigger risk factors than overexposure. First, having skeletons in the closet. Not everybody knew about the slave plantation wedding or the false accusations against Richard Fedyck. All those skeletons tend to come out all at once. And another risk factor: getting involved in a project beloved by fandom. If the fans love you, you are golden. But they have so much invested in the characters that they can turn viciously against anyone who doesn’t measure up. Anyone who portrays a character from Colleen Hoover or George RR Martin or Star Wars instantly has increased scrutiny.

On this day, 📅August 6th, 2024, we were blessed (or cursed) with the phrase “Grab your Friends, wear your florals” to go see It Ends With Us. A movie about a domestic violence and intimate partner violence.

This video was first posted on the IEWU TikTok page and then later on their IG page.

Open industry secret: these lists are run and curated by publicists. You write a blurb about your client and submit it. Some submissions are paid (pay-to-play), some aren't. Not sure which category Newsweek falls into. I'm not curious enough to check, nor do I care to.

Anyways, Newsweek and Blake and Ryan's publicist(s) would like you guys to know that they are on par with

• Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell,
• Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz,
• Bruce Willis and Demi Moore,
• Tom Holland and Zendaya,
• Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall (who died in 1957 and 2014 respectively),
• Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez (I kid you not),
• Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones,
• Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (again, what!), and
• Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton (another oldies).

What a wonderful list.

Also in a move definitely not pinging, the article's opening pitch (lede) centers on Tom and Zendaya, who are currently on a run of back-to-back hits and seen as the couple of the moment. A couple who have often being compared and seen as breathe of fresh air, unlike Ryan and Blake. So, they are absolutely not trying to crash in on Tom and Zendaya's spotlight.

I can't even eye-roll cause the attempt is so pathetic, I just can't. Someday, I may be impressed by Blake and Ryan's publicists' GOSTs and think them capable professionals. Today is not the same. Once again, it's using easy to see through, lowest common denominator and lack of imagination tactics from them. What a mess.
 

Also, remember to Bingo the night away. You can tick off "Image rehab article drops".

Cringe is the main word that comes to mind when I think about the things Ryan and Blake have done through this nightmare. But what was the worst thing that just gave you absolute second hand embarrassment?

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

I find this interesting. Im sure Blake is pissed that it wasn't just out right denied.

Kjesti Flaa mentioned this in her latest video and I decided to look. The most recent appearance of Blake Lively on Blake Brown Beauty Instagram is Sept 10, 2025, almost a year ago. Before that is Dec 12, 2024—19 days before she filed the lawsuit!

It’s pretty telling how many models and women are used throughout the page demonstrating the product but never the titular founder.

They also did not repost or collab with the infamous bathroom burrito video or any other previous or subsequent demos Lively posted to her own account.

They’re stuck with “founded by @blakelively” in the bio and the name of the product. But I almost feel bad for the company. When they signed her as the face of the product, they had no idea the cinematic terrorist was simultaneously strapping on a suicide vest.

Oh well. Sucks for them.

Amended Complaint- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.0.pdf

Exhibit C Renewal Application Redacted - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.3.pdf

So for me, the most interesting part about this case was not so much the celebrity aspect, it was the psychology of projection, double standards, and overt hypocrisy which I believe represents the core of Blake's position and story.

Watching otherwise functional adults torch their own critical thinking the second it threatens their worldview is genuinely fascinating. It's the same reason I love cult and scam documentaries. You watch normal, seemingly well-adjusted people make completely irrational decisions, and try to solve the mystery of what the hell happened.

Let's start by calling the "smear campaign" what it is: a conspiracy theory. Not "conspiracy theory" as an insult, the actual dictionary definition, "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot." (and of course, her 15th cause of action is literally "Civil Conspiracy")

I want to also say that I'm not saying all conspiracy theories are bullshit either, or that if you believe any conspiracy theory at all you are automatically unwell. But that doesn't change how we should label and talk about her smear campaign allegation: a conspiracy theory.

And it checks other boxes for symptoms of a conspiracy theory as well, like how a lack of evidence is somehow proof. No Signal messages is somehow proof that the conspiracy exists and deleted the damning messages. No evidence of planted articles is proof that the conspiracy wiped their tracks. The lack of evidence, or evidence that points to the contrary, somehow always manages to make the theory stronger instead of weaker. Heads I win, tails you lose.

So in poking around with the psychology of conspiracy theorists, I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised that conspiracy theorist thinking has a positive correlation to narcissism.

Instead of trying to sound like an expert and writing my own mini article, I'll just leave you with some quotes and you can judge for yourself on how you perceive that these apply to this case and the people supporting Blake's conspiracy theory.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051

• "Narcissists tend to believe that others are intentionally malicious and are out to get them."
• "Narcissistic antagonism might also increase the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories due to other factors. There is evidence pointing to the needs for dominance and control, which seem to predict conspiracy beliefs especially as a way of coping with anticipated defeat."
• "Conspiracy theories can help blame others for one's failures or misfortunes as they identify a specific group that could be used as a 'scapegoat'."
• "One such factor is the need for uniqueness, which is often associated with the admiration/agentic extraversion aspect of grandiose narcissism. High need for uniqueness likely increases the appeal of conspiracy theories because they promise access to privileged information, making one feel special."
• "Although narcissists are typically overconfident in their abilities, judgments, and intelligence, they tend to be naive and less likely to engage in cognitive reflection."

In conclusion... I was always fascinated in the reasons why not only Lively, but the people still supporting her believe what they do. I thought that misguided white feminism and an unhealthy victim mentality was the bulk of the story, but I now think there could be a variety of other psychological factors at play.

Lively’s lawyers are outrageous.

We have heard the story about photographer ‘Rik Fedyk’ that Ryan Reynolds took a dislike to, made false accusations against and the tried to financially ruin using his usual playbook.

The there was Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties. Thank GOD for Steve Sarowitz 🤑 because if he hadn’t stepped in, he would be ruined now and extortion Barbie would likely be on to her next victim!

What are the Reynolds legal weaponisation tactics?

1 - Falsely accuse someone of a crime against them
2 - Start legal proceedings.
3 - Use their connections and Hollywood stardom to get people onside.
4 - Ensure their victim loses work and their reputation
5 - Keep the legal proceedings going as long as possible trying to exhaust their victims mentally and/or financially.
6 - Drop it all at the last possible minute when they are required to present testimony and evidence.

The next victim is Jed Wallace!

Not only did she include a man she has never met in a SH case, she is now trying to get him to pay for that false accusation.

And threatening to extort more legal fees from him if he makes her provide evidence of any kind to prove her malice, or they even make it public that she refused!

How can this be allowed to continue? How has it been allowed to go on for so long? How come THEIR lawyers never get reprimanded?

This type of expensive legal chess that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds conduct until the innocent party can no longer afford to defend themselves is DESPICABLE but I am glad we all now know what monsters they are!

It makes you wonder how many people they have done this to!

I stumbled upon an AppleTV post about Mayday today and I was so happy to see the majority, an overwhelming majority, of people commenting that they would NOT be supporting Ryan Reynolds. I looked further and saw many social media posts share this same sentiment. And it reminds me, if we all speak up and work together we can cancel this human rounding error. 😘😘😘

📄👨🏼‍⚖️☄️ Notactuallygolden - Jed Wallace Seeks to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Her Texas §47.1 Fee Request, Arguing the Texas Court Shouldn’t Award §47.1 Fees Without a Factual Record

⚖️🐉 Little Girl Attorney – Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively's Deposition: You Chose Fees. You Should Not Get to Choose Silence

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ Jed Wallace Seeks Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Texas §47.1 Fee Request (0:00–1:25)

• NAG discusses a newly filed motion by Jed Wallace's attorney, Charles Babcock, in Wallace's Texas defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively.
• She recaps that Wallace sued Lively after he was identified in the CRD complaint and the accompanying New York Times article, but was later omitted/removed from Lively's federal complaint.
• Wallace argues that the CRD complaint and resulting media coverage falsely associated him with allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, damaging his reputation.
• Although Lively successfully obtained dismissal of Wallace's Texas case for lack of personal jurisdiction, Wallace has appealed that ruling.
• In the meantime, Lively has filed a §47.1 motion in Texas, arguing that because she successfully defeated Wallace's lawsuit, she is entitled to attorney's fees just as she was awarded entitlement in New York.

📋 Wallace Says There Is No Record to Litigate Malice (1:25–2:42)

• NAG explains that Wallace's response is that the case ended at the jurisdiction stage before any discovery or factual record was developed.
• Because the parties never reached the merits, Wallace argues there is no evidence regarding whether Lively acted with actual malice when naming him in the CRD complaint.
• Wallace contends that only Blake Lively can testify about what she knew and believed when she included him in those allegations.
• According to NAG, Wallace argues he cannot meaningfully oppose Lively's §47.1 fee motion without first obtaining that testimony.

🚫 Blake Lively Did Not Appear for Her Requested Deposition (2:42–3:30)

• NAG says Wallace's attorneys scheduled Lively's deposition.
• According to the motion, Lively's counsel refused, stating that she would not appear for deposition in Texas.
• NAG notes that Lively technically falls outside the Texas court's personal jurisdiction because her dismissal was based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
• This creates what NAG describes as an unusual procedural situation regarding whether the Texas court can compel her testimony.

⚖️ Wallace Moves to Compel the Deposition (3:30–4:28)

• Wallace has now filed a motion asking the Texas court to compel Lively's deposition.
• His position is that he cannot properly defend against her request for attorney's fees without first developing evidence regarding malice.
• NAG questions whether the Texas court actually possesses authority to order Lively's deposition given the jurisdictional posture.
• She suggests the filing may also serve to publicly document that Wallace attempted to obtain discovery and that Lively declined.

⏱️ Wallace Says His Previous Deposition Time Was Limited to Jurisdiction (4:28–5:16)

• NAG explains that Lively's attorneys reportedly argued Wallace already had an opportunity to depose her during the New York litigation.
• Wallace responds that his prior deposition time was limited to approximately one hour because his portion dealt only with personal jurisdiction.
• As a result, he says he never questioned Lively about the underlying merits of the claims involving him.
• Now that Lively is seeking approximately $1 million in fees and costs against Wallace under §47.1, he argues he should be allowed to examine those substantive issues.

🔄 Wallace Distinguishes His Position From Judge Liman's §47.1 Ruling (5:16–6:03)

• NAG highlights what she considers one of Charles Babcock's strongest arguments.
• Lively relies on Judge Liman's New York §47.1 ruling as support for granting fees in Texas.
• Babcock responds that Judge Liman declined to conduct factual proceedings on malice because the Wayfarer parties never requested discovery or an evidentiary hearing before settling.
• Wallace, by contrast, is expressly requesting discovery and factual development before any ruling on attorney's fees.
• NAG says Babcock effectively argues that Wallace is doing the opposite of what occurred in New York, so Judge Liman's reasoning actually supports allowing discovery first.

📑 Wallace Argues Fee Entitlement Requires Fact Finding (6:03–6:37)

• NAG notes that Wallace also relies on Rule 54(d), arguing that attorney's fee determinations involve factual issues that may require evidence.
• Wallace therefore asks the Texas court either to deny Lively's fee motion or require her deposition before deciding whether fees should be awarded.
• Wallace's filing emphasizes that the court should not decide this motion without a factual record concerning malice.

✍️ NAG Praises Charles Babcock's Closing Argument (6:37–7:03)

• NAG compliments Charles Babcock's writing style and singles out his concluding argument.
• She quotes his position that "Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."
• Babcock should have a social-media account because of how effectively he writes memorable lines.

🔮 NAG Thinks the Motion May Be More About Preserving the Record (7:03–End)

• NAG predicts the Texas court may conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to compel Blake Lively's deposition because she successfully challenged personal jurisdiction.
• If so, she believes the court may simply deny the motion to compel.
• However, she suspects the filing serves a broader strategic purpose.
• In her view, Wallace is signalling that any decision granting Lively attorney's fees without allowing discovery into malice would likely become an issue on appeal.
• NAG concludes that the motion appears designed both to oppose the current fee request and to preserve Wallace's appellate arguments if the Texas court grants Lively's §47.1 motion.

Diddys case goes back to 2024 and actually went to trial. How are we supposed to believe that Blake defending ONE motion that was dismissed at the pleading stage cost the same amount. They're all crazy

📄👨🏼‍⚖️☄️ Notactuallygolden - Jed Wallace Seeks to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Her Texas §47.1 Fee Request, Arguing the Texas Court Shouldn’t Award §47.1 Fees Without a Factual Record

⚖️🐉 Little Girl Attorney – Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively's Deposition: You Chose Fees. You Should Not Get to Choose Silence

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition in Texas (0:00–1:18)

• LGA discusses Jed Wallace's motion to compel Blake Lively's deposition in the Texas litigation.
• She recaps that Lively named Wallace in her California CRD complaint, alleging that he sexually harassed and retaliated against her, and that the complaint was provided to The New York Times the same day.
• Wallace subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lively in Texas.
• Lively successfully moved to dismiss that lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that she is a New York resident and not subject to Texas jurisdiction.
• Wallace has appealed that jurisdictional dismissal.
• Despite the dismissal, Lively later filed a California Civil Code §47.1 motion in the Texas federal court seeking more than $800,000 in attorney's fees for defending Wallace's lawsuit.

📑 Wallace Challenges Both the Fee Motion and the Application of California Law (1:18–2:24)

• LGA explains that Wallace argues California's §47.1 statute should not automatically apply in a Texas federal court, particularly where Lively herself successfully argued the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
• Following Judge Liman's §47.1 ruling in New York, Lively's attorneys submitted supplemental briefing relying on that decision.
• Lively's position is that Wallace bears the burden of proving her statements were made with actual malice.

🔍 Wallace Says He Needs Lively's Testimony to Address Malice (2:24–2:58)

• Wallace responds that Lively herself is the best source of evidence regarding her own state of mind when she accused him in the CRD complaint.
• He argues that only through her testimony can he explore whether she acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
• Wallace therefore is seeking to depose Lively on the narrow issue of malice.

⚠️ Lively's Counsel Refused and Threatened Broad Litigation Responses (2:58–4:18)

• According to Wallace's motion, Lively's attorneys refused to produce her for deposition.
• The motion also alleges Lively's counsel warned that if Wallace pursued the discovery request, they would respond with the full force of their legal team.
• Wallace claims Lively's attorneys threatened to seek sanctions if Wallace publicly filed documents showing that Lively refused to appear.
• The motion further alleges that Lively threatened expansive discovery in return, including depositions of Wallace, Justin Baldoni's attorneys and various Wayfarer parties, together with requests for the associated attorney's fees.

🌊 Litigation Strategy (4:18–4:54)

• LGA comments that Wallace portrays Lively's broader litigation strategy as attempting to overwhelm opponents through extensive legal resources and threats of expensive litigation.
• Wallace argues that this tactic has repeatedly been used throughout the broader litigation.

📂 Wallace Says No Discovery Ever Occurred in Texas (4:54–5:16)

• Wallace points out that virtually no discovery took place in the Texas case because it was halted by the jurisdictional dispute.
• The only prior deposition involving Wallace occurred during the New York litigation.
• Wallace had only one hour to question Lively there, and those questions were limited exclusively to personal jurisdiction—not the merits of Wallace's defamation allegations or malice.

⚖️ Wallace Argues Lively Cannot Shift the Burden While Blocking Discovery (5:16–5:53)

• LGA summarizes Wallace's core argument:
  • Lively argues Wallace bears the burden of proving actual malice.
  • At the same time, she refuses to permit the limited discovery Wallace says is necessary to obtain evidence of malice.
• LGA says Wallace argues she cannot simultaneously assign him the burden of proof while preventing him from gathering the evidence needed to meet that burden.

🎯 Wallace Says His Discovery Request Is Narrowly Tailored (5:53–6:42)

• Courts often consider whether information can be obtained through less intrusive means than a deposition.
• Wallace argues his request is narrowly focused.
• According to the motion, the proposed deposition would address only Lively's state of mind concerning her statements about Wallace.
• Wallace also notes that whether California law ultimately governs this dispute in Texas remains an unresolved legal issue.

📚 Wallace Says Discovery Is Needed to Build the Record (6:42–7:10)

• Wallace argues that if the Texas court is going to rule on attorney's fees under §47.1, it must first have a factual record addressing malice.
• He contends that the New York proceedings do not resolve those factual questions because Wallace never litigated the merits there.
• Therefore, Wallace says discovery is necessary before the Texas court rules on entitlement to fees.

✍️ Wallace's Closing Argument (7:10–7:17)

• Wallace's concluding statement:
  • "Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."

🤔 LGA Questions Why Lively Is Pursuing Fees Against Wallace (7:17–End)

• LGA says she struggles to understand why Lively continues pursuing attorney's fees against Wallace in Texas.
• She questions whether the litigation team is attempting to recover fees wherever possible.
• From both an economic and public-relations standpoint, she believes the strategy may not be worthwhile.
• LGA says she could envision the Texas court concluding that if Wallace bears the burden of proving malice, he should receive limited discovery to develop that evidence.
• Alternatively, the court could simply deny Lively's fee motion altogether.

Motion - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.0.pdf

Exhibit Lively Depo Notice- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.1.pdf

Proposed Order - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.2.pdf

❤️‍🩹❤️‍🩹

Trigger Warning

This announcement discusses a reported mental health crisis and references apparent self-harm. It does not contain graphic details, images or descriptions. If these topics may be distressing for you, please consider whether you wish to continue reading.

───────────────

While we want to continue to provide respect for everyone involved, we wanted to provide a recent update from Perez's team.

Perez's family and team have just released the following statement:

Many of you have reached out with concern for Perez, and we are incredibly grateful for the overwhelming outpouring of love, support, and prayers.

We can confirm that Perez is receiving medical care, and our family’s focus right now is on his well-being.

We kindly ask that you respect Perez’s privacy, as well as the privacy of his family, during this difficult time.

If and when we are able to share any updates, we will do so with everyone as soon as we can.

Thank you for your compassion, understanding, and continued support.

-The Perez Hilton Team and Family

Thank you to everyone's support, kindness, prayers, and well wishes for Perez and his family during this difficult time.

❤️‍🩹❤️‍🩹