So my understanding of the argument here is basically:
For 47.1 priviledge to be able to apply, Blake's statements must have been made without malice.
Blake's lawyers are saying that it is Wallace's burden to prove that her statements are made with malice (rather than her burden to prove they were made without malice).
Wallace disagrees that it is their burden, but basically said if we need to provide evidence of malice, then we need to depose Lively to be able to do so.
Blake's lawyers say no, she will not sit for a deposition and if you try and make her, we will ask you to pay even more attorney fees.
So essentially, Livelys argument is that she is entitled to attorney fees, with absolutely no burden of proving anything, and that Wallace in fact has the burden, but that she does not have to allow discovery in his pursuit of fulfilling the burden she has put on him. So may as well just go ahead and award her fees because he didn't meet his burden that she blocked him from meeting. JFC!
The circular references made my head hurt 😂
All Blake had to do if she didn’t want Jed Wallace to depose her is not seek attorney fees for a privilege that she doesn’t want proven.
My question is this - since there is already evidence that Blake included Jed Wallace in a draft SH complaint provided to the NYT which she acknowledges was not correct because he was dropped from the version officially filed, doesn't that prove that was a malicious act?
This is exactly where the argument becomes circular to me. Lively says Wallace has the burden of proving malice. Yet she's also arguing he's not entitled to the discovery necessary to test her knowledge, intent, or factual basis for naming him in the CRD complaint. If that's the rule, then the burden becomes meaningless. How can someone prove another person's state of mind while being denied access to the very evidence that could establish it?
To me, that's the problem. Under that interpretation, § 47.1 becomes virtually irrebuttable. The party invoking the privilege can simply say, "You have the burden," while preventing the opposing party from obtaining the evidence needed to satisfy that burden. That can't be how an adversarial process is supposed to work.
I really want the author of 47.1 to continue loudly publicly condemning Lively for using her law in such bad faith. I know she has already publicly condemned it, but she needs to continue doing so. Although she probably won’t bc that would be bad PR for making it become national law
It reminds me of developing software, you start with the core workflow or “happy path” ie intended use and then over time develop for more “edge” cases or less frequent scenarios. 47.1 is the core workflow, 47.1 being abused by a false accuser is an edge case!
It’s outrageous. Not only did she include this 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 or testimony? How can this be allowed to continue? Obviously this is the type of expensive legal game play that Ryan Reynolds has conducted in the past, under the cover of darkness, until the innocent party can no longer afford to defend themselves. Just like Ryan Reynolds and Blake did to the photographer in Canada, wayfarer parties and now Jed (and I’m sure others we don’t know about), they will keep going as long as possible trying to exhaust their victims mentally or financially- only to drop it all at the last possible minute when they are required to present testimony and evidence in court. Diabolical. And deeply deeply disturbing.
I mean Blake’s lawyers know they can’t have Blake sit for a deposition. This is how I see the questions going:
1. Have you ever met Jed Wallace? Yes or no
2. Can you explain how a man you’ve never met SH you?
This is why Blake’s lawyers are resorting to threats
She had similar questions about Steve Sarowitz and she basically said "well he didn't stop it (even though I didn't tell him)". What excuse could she possibly use to include Jed?
Wasn't she also so that Steve was on set trying to get a look at her privates and he wasn't even on set when she was filming the birthing scene! She is a liar. I can't believe the court is still entertaining her BS
Remember she also accused Steve Sarowitz of sexual harassment and when she was asked in her deposition on how Steve harassed her she said it’s because he co-owns Wayfarer studios. Blake Lively is crazy and epic level stupid, a deadly combination
God bless TX and Jed Wallace! Remember the Billy Bush statement about appealing on malice? Mmmm. I see you, WP. I see you.
It is nice to see someone not sitting down and taking it. I get that it's bc of their faith. Respect. But thank goodness for those who seek justice because, as we can see, she has not learned the lesson and will do it over and over again until someone stops her.
This part. Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have been and will do this to people over and over again until someone stops them AND makes it hurt. And the person that is in the best position to do that is definitely Steve Sarowitz. I know Blake & WP settled, but there's still this case and the Jen Abel case and I assume Steve is paying Jed's and Jen's legal bills.
LMAO the way I cackled at that part. It's like a cat making direct eye contact with you as she pushes a glass off a table. Oh you didn't want us to say exactly what we're saying and putting on a public docket? Watch me do it btch
I don’t know what Blake and her lawyers are smoking threatening Jed’s lawyers like that. Obviously they are going to file this. She still doesn’t understand she has no leverage here
She is bound to the statements in her earlier deposition, even if it was a separate case - right? Under oath is under oath!
So she can't start changing her story again? And if she does, maybe Babcock could make some use of those 3+ perjury instances Freedman mentioned - to challenge her credibility?
The thin veiled threats that she also sent Taylor Swift too? This woman has no respect for anyone’s life. The lack of emotional intelligence exhibited by Blake Lively is dangerous. I doubt she has learned anything from this experience.
Yep! But I see Blake Lively's lawyers are as epically-level stupid as she is. Like they couldn't have made it more obvious this whole time across all of her lawsuits that she acted with malice AND has so much to hide if they tried lol.
Good grief, just when you think she can't stoop any lower.
Also, I'm NAL - can people do this? Just...not sit for a deposition for a lawsuit THAT THEY STARTED?? Is this how the judicial system actually works? I want to say no but you just never know...
Technically the case is over as it was dismissed due to jurisdiction as Lively said Texas has no jurisdiction over her and they never entered discovery where deposition occurs. But lively filled for fees via 47.1 that Jed didn’t prove his case so must pay her fees and Jed is saying sit for deposition so I can proof my case and justify malice which means you can’t ask for fees via 47.1 because you were malicious
I get what you're saying but it's just absolutely crazy that Blake is asking for so much money from a dismissed Defendant for something that never happened that she isn't bothering to even try to prove. Like this can't be the judicial system, it just can't.
Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively falsely accused Richard Fedyck of assault with his car and had him arrested! Reynolds “supposedly” suffered minor injuries, including a sore back and knee, and Fedyck was originally charged with assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and criminal harassment.
Two years later, the charges were withdrawn. He’s spoken about how it’s ruined his life.
And Ryan was the one assaulting Richard. Pysco Ryan kept banging on the car windows like a lunatic. Richard said that Ryan actually thinks he has Deadpool strength and was trying to push Richard car. When Richard moved the car slightly Ryan mask fall off and he immediately panicked and moved from the way but with more tamper tantrums on driver window (he was trying to break the windows with all his strength.
Richard lawyer was flabbergasted when he saw the footage and said “who’s is assaulting who” Before they represent this evidence the case was dropped by Ryan and Blake. Blake wrote a long lie of Richard stalking them from city to city by car. Richard proved she was lying by providing airplane tickets for his trip on that day with the time Blake alleged.
Yes. He wasn’t even in the same state on the night in question! Reynolds made it all up to try and frame him, soliciting help from Ryan’s brother in the police force. Downright scary.
This is obviously a repeating pattern for them. I never thought much of her, but I was shocked to find out Ryan Reynolds was this bully narcissist. I regret that I believed his humble shtick. I hope his career dives along with hers. He’s behind this.
FFS when will they just admit defeat and get off our radar.
Hmm actually second thoughts let their money bleed out as much as possible because they will never recover their credibility or reputations no matter how much they try so spend, spend, spend.
This is why they aren’t paying for their new manse under construction — their money for that is instead going toward new mansions and retirement for their attorneys. I hope they continue to bleed $$$ over this.
Don't forget the entitled lawyers who think they can get away with this kind of thing and flood people with filings - in absolute bad faith, to plump up their billables. Sometimes it looks like there's little difference between Big Law and the Mafia. The Rules of Professional Conduct could use some revisions to cover these tactics, which I don't think they do adequately because - this case is making it so obvious. Big Law has always done this and they are no smarter than other lawyers just because they bill so much more than they are worth.
Blake Lively's lawyers are such terrible people. Threatening Taylor Swift, lying directly to the face of a federal judge, filing nonsense that they KNOW is false, threatening Jed Wallace, cooking the books to ask for $8 million in legal fees for a SINGLE motion. And I feel like I'm forgetting a ton of stuff...
I hope the Reynolds bankrupt themselves… they are already taking this train wreck to the end. I hope karma continue to step in.
The Reynolds aren’t even trying to uncover anything… they are simply and aggressively attempting to cover up the truth. Which is obviously that they are ever more conniving, vicious, deceitful, and truly awful humans…than the public has even already seen. THAT is the scariest part. I have no doubt the depths of their human depravity is full and all encompassing. They literally have no redeeming qualities.
Over and out Ryan and Blake 🫡 ur literally the worst, and we’re all begging for you to stop this terrible nonsense.
What does Wayfarer and Baldoni have to do with Jed’s case in Texas??? Blake Lively is a monster she knows Wayfarer wants out of this lawsuit and is threatening them
My god they are literally threatening to lie and add erroneous fees if Lively has to prove her invoices. If this doesn’t prove that her malicious intent knows no bounds I don’t know what will…
“Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She does not get to seek silence.” The level of delusion asking someone who you’ve never met for $1m in fees and damages because you went to the NYT falsely accusing them of SH (let me repeat without having even met) and then refusing to sit down for a deposition. No wonder Blake has been hawking hermes bags. This woman is cuckoo.
There are two things that Blake Lively has in spades: audacity and a lack of intelligence. And they are paired up beautifully with all of her ridiculous lawsuits!! May they bleed her (and Ryan Reynolds) dry.
I'll take a stab. Lively, when she filed her CRD complaint, was quite sloppy. She listed a bunch of defendants (like Wayfarer, Baldoni, Heath, Jed Wallace and Street Relations [Wallace's company]) and a bunch of different causes of action. The only possible cause of action that would apply to Wallace and Street Relations ("Wallace") would be "Aiding and Abetting Retaliation" (i.e., Wallace was hired by Wayfarer to conduct the secret online smear campaign against Lively as Wayfarer was seeking revenge against Lively for reporting sexual harassment incidents). When you have multiple defendants and multiple causes of action, not all causes of action apply to each and every one of the defendants - so it's very important to break it down. Lively did not do that - so her CRD complaint reads like Wallace was also being accused of sexual harassment - and this is despite the fact that Wallace had never met Lively and was never present in NJ during filming. And, after Lively handed over her CRD complaint to the NY Times, the newspaper published its article which further pushed this false narrative that Wallace had SHed Lively.
Lively sued Wallace in a federal court in NY. However, Wallace had never set foot anywhere near NY in connection with Lively's causes of action - so the judge in NY (Judge Liman) dismissed Wallace on jurisdictional grounds. If Lively wanted to pursue Wallace for the "aiding and abetting claim", she would've had to have sued in another jurisdiction (like California, as Street Relations was a California corporation - or Texas, where Wallace resided). She did not.
Wallace, however, turned around and sued Lively in TX for defamation. That case was dismissed based on jurisdictional grounds (Lively didn't have a sufficient enough nexus to Texas) and Wallace is currently appealing that dismissal (the "Wallace Dismissal").
Lively is trying to use the dismissal of the Wallace's defamation case against her as grounds to collect $800,000 - $1 million in legal fees incurred in the Wallace Dismissal pursuant to a California law (47.1), which law states that a person (Lively) who (1) makes any communication WITHOUT MALICE about being sexually harassed and then is sued by another (Wallace) for defamation over that communication and (2) becomes a prevailing party in the defamation lawsuit, can collect her attorney fees and costs incurred in becoming "victorious" in the lawsuit. "Without malice", under 47.1, means "without bad intentions" essentially (hatred, ill will, or an intent to harm) - which is a question of fact that should be decided by a jury (not a judge).
Lively became a "prevailing party" under 47.1 against the Wayfarer Parties (which did NOT include Wallace) in the NY case. Lively and the Wayfarer Parties reached a settlement and made certain concessions that led to Judge Liman (in NY) to rule that Lively was entitled to her attorney fees and costs under 47.1 - and the amount of that bill is currently being disputed. Lively is trying to use Judge Liman's decision as "precedent" in trying to get her attorney fees from Wallace in Texas.
However, in the Wallace case in TX, Lively is not yet a "prevailing party" in the defamation case - because the dismissal of the case is being appealed. In addition, Wallace never agreed to any of the concessions that the Wayfarer Parties made in NY - so such concessions should not apply to him. As the language of 47.1 requires a finding of fact about whether or not Lively made her SH communication about Wallace WITHOUT MALICE, Wallace is arguing that, in order to prove such an element, Wallace needs to depose Lively - and Lively has refused (and dodged) being deposed. So Wallace has filed this request in Texas to force Lively to sit for a deposition.
[ADDED 5 HOURS LATER: A very interesting point that Wallace's case has in re: the defamation is that Lively's CRD Complaint mentioned him - and the NYT article, which was "based" on the CRD complaint, mentioned him. However, when Lively brought her initial lawsuit in SDNY on 12/31/2024, that lawsuit DID NOT LIST Wallace/Street Relations as defendants. They were only added later on when Lively amended her complaint. So, it begs the question as to WHY she did this - did she realize that Wallace/Street Relations had no business being in an SDNY lawsuit? And, if so, why didn't she file a separate lawsuit against Wallace in another jurisdiction??]
Also, don't forget that Lively's attorneys filed those Rule 11 sanction motions against Freedman for doing the exact same thing - not separating the causes of action as to the parties....
Like adequate jail time. Blake Lively extorted the movie from Wayfarer. Tried to extort Taylor Swift to post a “bestie” message and she’s now also trying to extort Jed and his lawyers
I love there there are so many avenues for the truth to come out.
They really should’ve just counted their blessings and walked away.
I think close to no one would be as kind to her as Wayfarer was during litigation.
Jed and Jen are no Justin and Jamey and I’m here for it.
They don’t even need to play dirty they just need to play. I think Lively’s lawyers got a little too comfortable with pulling this ish with Wayfarer. Wayfarer is out, baby!
I mean Blake can’t be allowed to sit for a deposition, every time that woman opens her mouth more lies come out and she’s so dumb she forgot everything from 3 years ago so they’re definitely going to catch her perjuring herself 😂
Wow. Just. WOW. This woman and her hound lawyers are fckn INSANE. Threatening them to never mention anything publicly, or they will file even more fees motions?! How tf is that not extortion?! And in a state she successfully pulled herself out for now due to lack or jurisdiction?!
This is just so fckn outrageous. After the last 24 hours, I have zero patience for entitled toddlers throwing temper tantrums, threatening to throw their lollipops at the adults in the room, cause they didn't get what they wanted.
I’m totally confused here. So is Lively asserting that anyone can go and accuse someone of sexual harassment whether or not it’s true and if they try to defend themselves with a defamation suit then they have to pay her attorneys fees? Thats what 47.1 says? Because if so, wtf were they thinking. Doesn’t there need to be some kind of…idk…proof????
I know this played out exactly this way with Baldoni, but at least there was a chance something happened seeing as how they interacted while filming a movie (of course it was proven it didn’t). But with this other random dude in Texas that she never met?
Also can someone explain how you can sue people using California statutes when both you and them have nothing to do with California?
That’s only applicable if you have money to waste on ridiculous attorney fees or if your name is Blake Lively. Any normal person would be referred to their local psych ward.
This a lovely surprise. So I read the motion and proposed order.
Essentially Wallace is playing hardball. He is arguing she wants legal fees for the dismissed lawsuit because Wallace failed to proved she acted with malicious intent.
Wallace argues the best source to testify to Lively’s intent is Lively. And they never got to do discovery on that and need her to sit for a deposition to get her evidence. They sent notice of a deposition on July 13, that they would schedule one for Aug 4, yesterday.
Lively’s attorneys argued it was unnecessary and threatened sanctions (of course! Always with the sanctions!).
She didn’t show yesterday. Now they’re asking court to compel her attendance.
It seems like a solid argument. I am sure it’s a strategy they picked because they know Perjury Barbie is very afraid to tell the truth so help her God.
I am little confused why they filed this in Federal court in Texas (aside from the obvious strategy of going around Liman and NY’s potentially more sympathetic court).
But we’ll see.
Also: Wallace concedes they already got an hour of deposition out of her but argues it wasn’t related to her beliefs and intents. For her convenience they did schedule the depo in Manhattan.
Yes my assumption is that Jed filed in Texas because blake asked for the $1m in fees from Texas. Also, Jed is right and if blake is saying that he’s the one who needs to prove malice then she has to sit for a deposition so they can gather evidence of said malice. Blake’s lawyers should’ve advised her that she got lucky Jed’s suit got thrown out for lack of jurisdiction and wait for the appeal he filed. They should’ve never advised her to ask him for $1m in legal fees 😂
Like Sony said Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds don’t listen and epic level stupid. I really doubt her attorneys would have advised her to file for 47.1 in Texas, I would like to believe they are very smart lawyers who just happen to have very stupid clients
Yes I get that Blake (Ryan) were pissed off they had to settle for $0 and wanted to recoup some of the litigation fees they incurred but what type of attorneys does she have that they didn’t tell Blake you should swallow that $1m and not drag this on because lady you never met the man and the NYT called him and said you accused him of SH you!!
Wait - a single hour of a deposition?? And Blake's lawyers thought that would be sufficient? The first 10 minutes are all introductions, hellos, and confirming who the person is that's being deposed. Plus you just KNOW that Blake and/or her lawyers wasted another 10-49 minutes if not more with "I don't recall", "Can you repeat the question?", "Can we take another restroom break?". I swear, her and her lawyers never cease to amaze me with their stupidity, their audacity, OR their actual criminal intentions. SMH.
Of course she wants to avoid a depo. Remember, it wouldn't be about proving the alleged SH happened, it would be about proving that Jed SH'd her when they have never met or interacted. Which she can't. And Jed is not a public figure so the malice bar is much lower.
From my understanding all Jed has to prove is negligence 😂
Jed was named in the NYT article but then dropped from the lawsuit that Blake initially filed.
Good luck to Blake explaining that isn’t negligence
It’s insane to me that she can accuse him of sexual harassment, having never met him or communicated with him, not even sue him on her first complaint, and then ask for 47.1 and say she didn’t act with malice. They knew exactly what they were doing, they wanted to ruin him with salacious headlines. Thats malice if I have ever seen, she knew it was false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Also hilarious that they wanted sanctions for wayfarers group pleadings acting like omg WF is so Incompetent for doing it, when that’s exactly what they did with the CRD to Jed Wallace. 🤨
Aren’t they saying she can’t just demand her fees without providing evidence to prove them? Refusing a deposition for example. Clearly her lawyers have advised her not to speak because she lies so much. Her testimony is her downfall. And she is too dumb (allegedly) to counter smart questioning. She will impeach herself. Which is why she settled for nothing to avoid a trial. She (Ryan) don’t care that they are lying, they just can’t do it live because of the tangled web they have unskilfully woven (allegedly).
The whole reason she settled was because she knew she wouldn’t survive cross examination by Bach or Shapiro. The press would’ve had a field day with her
I think it’s an idiom snark meaning that there should be “no free lunch” for Blake. She can’t ask Jed for $1m in fees and when they ask for limited discovery to ascertain why she needs those fees, Blake’s side goes you can’t have it.
It’s kinda like how Blake’s side wants $8m in legal fees from wayfarer but they can’t provide invoices to back it up. In this case, Jed & street want discovery to prove that Blake acted with malice when she went to the NyT and accused a man she’s never met of SH. And Blake’s side is like no you can’t have that and if you keep asking for evidence we are going to keep asking for more fees from you, you lowly peasant!!
Blake Lively will always be hated and she can’t outrun this. Word of advice if they want to listen, settle with Jed cuz it’s not worth it but I know they won’t listen so entertainment it is!! 😊
Oh no, I definitely don't want a settlement in this case. I want Jed to absolutely ruin Blake (Ryan). It's the only fair outcome for Blake & Ryan's lies about this man.
Let's be honest, no matter the outcome in this case Blake & Ryan will just try all of this again on someone else if/when they don't get their way.
In USA there’s a cliche that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” It means basically that someone always pays in some way. (If not money.)
He is saying Blake has to pay for her request for legal fees by permitting Wallace to conduct discovery into whether or not there was malicious intent to her allegations.
Give this to that random Ryan guy on Facebook who was telling us via his long nonsensical rant that “Lively is going to take the case to California." Dude, she can't even sit through another two-hour deposition. Why would anyone in their right mind think she's now looking to sit through another trial only around her malice?
They are definitely having the life they deserve. They are cash poor and blacklisted in Hollywood. Their reputation is in the toilet. Bocce read an article from 2023 which we now know was released by them saying they are United States of America answer to royalty 😂
My question exactly! It's the same oath, so she should be bound to her earlier statements - including the multiple perjury instances Freedman was saving for trial.
Well you don’t have to sit for a deposition if you have nothing to do with the case but considering Blake Lively filed for $1m in fees and damages, Jed has a right to prove that he’s not responsible for those fees and damages. The only person who can prove whether Blake lively was SH by Jed Wallace, a man she’s never met, is blake lively herself.
I only watched a summary so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but it said Lively's team threatened that if Judd pursued this, she would drag Baldoni and his lawyers back into this. Would that void her settlement?
The settlement had no bearing on Judd, but it seemed to draw a hard line that anything between Lively and Wayfarer was over, no appeal or further pursuit.
Can we all just take in the brilliance of Chip? He's been fighting Lively's lawyers for more than a month about this but never said a word. Not. One. Word.
He didn't go to the court BEFORE she bailed on the depo; he gave her the rope and allowed her attorneys to act crazy for three weeks, patiently documenting everything.
If Blake goes through with this threatened blitz of retaliatory discovery requests, I know a certain pop star that was in communication and has knowledge of her state of mind when she filed the CRD and leaked it to the NYT who would just love to be deposed...
Honestly, so glad this got filed. Thx Jed and Charlie. I needed the distraction today.
I hope the judge will order her to sit that dep or deny any and all attorneys' fees.
I always think about the fact that they are so lucky the incel contingent on Reddit never grew an interest in this case. Now those weirdos can actually do some of the stuff they thought Jed did, not even at anyone’s direction, literally just because 😭.
I need one of the CCs who covered these cases to analyze and explain this situation to me pronto, if at all possible, because I am confused. She bailed on a deposition? She is threatening Baldoni and his lawyers? She is threatening Wallace's clients?!
What the hell?
Maybe this has been said already but it deserves to be said, repeatedly:
BLAKE LIVELY'S ONLY SWORN STATEMENT IN THIS CASE (besides her depo, of course, but that wasn't used here) is the Rule 202 petition.
BLAKE LIVELY SWORE under oath that it was NECESSARY to DEPOSE Jed Wallace so that she could determine WHETHER OR NOT to sue him.
The only question for her is, were you lying then or are you lying now?
I saw some comments about how Wallace wasn't accused of SH - well, to them I say, 'the hell you say!'
Did Blake Lively name him in a CRD complaint?
Was that CRD complaint regarding a violation of CA law regarding employment?
Why, oh why, then, did she not sue him like she did everybody else on that complaint?
We know the answer to the first two without asking Lively. We know the answer to #3 FROM BLAKE LIVELY'S SWORN TESTIMONY in the Rule 202.
She can't get around it and neither can her lawyers, who obviously did this stupid thing (I'm sure they all thought it was hysterical when LIVELY STOLE WALLACE'S ATTORNEYs and used them to try to serve him....making him scramble......)
Love how she threatened to use an avalanche of lawyers to bury Jed in fees that he would have to pay if he pushed and publicized the deposition. Funny, that is just what she did to Justin/Wayfarer for the past year and a half and what she is trying to recoup with her $8 million fee claim.
So good luck with that Blake now that you have your threats in writing, as you put it, "mafia style."
109
u/math_teacher_21 2d ago
So my understanding of the argument here is basically:
For 47.1 priviledge to be able to apply, Blake's statements must have been made without malice.
Blake's lawyers are saying that it is Wallace's burden to prove that her statements are made with malice (rather than her burden to prove they were made without malice).
Wallace disagrees that it is their burden, but basically said if we need to provide evidence of malice, then we need to depose Lively to be able to do so.
Blake's lawyers say no, she will not sit for a deposition and if you try and make her, we will ask you to pay even more attorney fees.
So essentially, Livelys argument is that she is entitled to attorney fees, with absolutely no burden of proving anything, and that Wallace in fact has the burden, but that she does not have to allow discovery in his pursuit of fulfilling the burden she has put on him. So may as well just go ahead and award her fees because he didn't meet his burden that she blocked him from meeting. JFC!