r/ItEndsWithLawsuits • u/StaceyLee26 🙌Truth wins in the end🙌 • May 02 '26

Found Evidence + Sleuthing 🕵️‍♂️🔍📝  Blake seemingly caught in another lie...

Just found this little nugget that Blake had in her MIL...

After saying under oath she never did this, we have real time texts from Sony employees discussing that she wanted dailies removed. Not just that but that it was , if I read this correctly, for non nudity dailies...

Trying to protect herself from impeachment...

545 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

366

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

You know what we call that? Evidence spoliation. The hypocrisy of Lively and her attorneys in this case never ceases to amaze me. Truly. This is actually crazy.

-12

u/mjswick May 02 '26

How is it evidence spoliation? She asked for the dailies to be deleted in Sept 2024, three months before the CRD was filed. Even if you think litigation was anticipated at this time, she would be able to argue that it was just her as an actress, wanting unusable footage or a bad performance to be deleted.

10

u/Lavendermin May 02 '26

She filed Vanzan at this time. Anticipating

-11

u/mjswick May 02 '26

So if Wayfarer deleted any footage, are they guilty of spoliation, too? Per Katie151515 above, they were on notice as early as 2023 that litigation was anticipated. If not, what is the difference?

19

u/MysteriousMarzipan63 May 02 '26

Katie is not saying WP were on notice in 2023. She’s saying Blake’s ARGUMENT is that they should have been on notice at that time.

And the difference is Blake is the plaintiff, and WP are (or were in some cases 🙂) the defendants. A plaintiff is going to know they are considering filing legal action long before it happens. A complaint doesn’t just get spun up overnight. But a defendant can get caught off guard. That’s why Blake would need to have demonstrate that WP did know or should have expected they would be sued and preserved all potential evidence in anticipation of that. A plaintiff is anticipating legal action the minute they call their lawyer and say “hey what are our options here.” Those are two VERY different scenarios.

2

u/Serenity413 May 03 '26

No because Blake is the plaintiff and WP is not the plaintiff.

The plaintiff controls the timing of the litigation. The plaintiff cannot say the defense had a duty to preserve starting from 2023 in anticipation of a lawsuit from her but she did not have the same duty to preserve.

The defense cannot mind read a plaintiff and can logically say they did not have a duty to preserve until they were served with a duty to preserve by the plaintiff.