Main Document

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 4

Attachment 5

Attachment 6

Attachment 7

Attachment 8

Attachment 9

Attachment 10

Attachment 11

Attachment 12

Attachment 13

Attachment 14

Attachment 15

Attachment 16

LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Kevin Fritz dated 10/5/26 re: briefing schedule. Document filed by Jennifer Abel..(Fritz, Kevin) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1474.0.pdf

ORDER: The Court has issued an opinion and order regarding liability for attorneys' fees and costs under California Civil Code Section 47.1. See No. 24-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 31, 2024), Dkt. No. 1440. By June 22, 2026, Lively shall file papers regarding the appropriate measure of fees. The Wayfarer Parties shall respond by June 29, 2026. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/15/2026) (ks) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1441.0_1.pdf

Wallace filed an advisory for his case with Lively informing them of Liman's ruling that was issued today.

Letter

Exhibit 1 (Liman's Ruling)

Courtlistener Docket

Original Complaint

The Parties - Who Is Suing Or Being Sued?

Harco Insurance Company - Company through which Wayfarer had purchased insurance through. This insurance was meant to provide coverage for lawsuits brought against Wayfarer and Directors and Officers of the company. Harco brought a lawsuit against Wayfarer after Wayfarer filed a claim through Harco for the Lively v. Wayfarer action. 

Wayfarer/It EndsWith Us Movie LLC - Wayfarer is the company co-owned by Justin Baldoni and Steve Sarowitz. This company ran the production for the film It Ends With Us. The movie LLC listed here was also used during the creation of the film and is listed as an entity in the lawsuit. Both are being sued by Harco.

Justin Baldoni - Actor and co-owner of Wayfarer. Being sued by Harco Insurance Company.

Steve Sarowitz - Co-owner and financier of Wayfarer. Being sued by Harco Insurance Company.

Jamey Heath - CEO of Wayfarer Studios. Being sued by Harco Insurance Company.

The Claims – Who Is Suing Who and What For?

Wayfarer studios, Justin Baldoni, Steve Sarowitz, and Jamey Heath were sued by Blake Lively at the very end of 2024 for sexual harassment and retaliation. Since these claims arose from their company Wayfarer studios and the filming of the movie It Ends With Us, they filed a claim with their insurer Harco to cover the expenses of the litigation.

However, Harco Insurance filed a lawsuit against Wayfarer, Baldoni, Sarowitz and Jamey Heath after denying their claim. Harco alleges that the aforementioned defendants violated the terms of their policy by failing to notify Harco of pending legal action and onset complaints about harassment. Due to this, Harco can deny their claim.

Claim 1 - No Coverage Under the 2024 Policy’s Liability Insuring Agreements. Harco argues that their 2024 policy only covers claims for a wrongful act that were made during the policy period that began on July 15th, 2024.. Wayfarer et al. are trying to receive coverage for a wrongful act that occurred during November of 2023 or earlier.

Claim 2 - Declaratory Judgement - No Coverage Under the 2023 Policy’s Liability Insuring Agreements. Harco states the Lively Action (the Lively v. Baldoni lawsuit) is treated as a claim first made no later than November 9th of 2023. Wayfarer and the other insured were obligated to provide written notice of a claim as soon as practicable, and no later than ninety days after the policy period ends. Wayfarer did not provide notice until April 25th of 2025. This is 314 days beyond the termination of the policy.

Claim 3 - Declaratory Judgement - No Coverage Under the 2023 Policy Pursuant to the 2023 Warranty and 2023 Prior Knowledge Exclusions. Harco’s policy requires those insured to have prior knowledge of any information or facts that might give rise to a claim within the scope of their policy. Harco alleges that information in the Lively action asserts that Wayfarer and defendants had knowledge of information that a claim may arise before July of 2023.

Claim 4 - Declaratory Judgment – No Coverage Under the 2024 Policy Pursuant to the 2024 Renewal Application and 2024 Prior Knowledge Exclusions. Harco requires that those who renew policies have no prior knowledge of information or facts that could give rise to a claim. When Heath renewed their policy with Harco, it was done with the knowledge of Lively’s complaints that arose before July of 2024, when Heath renewed the policy. As a result, Harco does not provide coverage for the Lively Action.

Where the Case Stands Now

This case is currently still ongoing. Wayfarer et al. filed a motion to dismiss/stay, and Harco has filed a motion in opposition. The related Lively v. Baldoni action has been settled since this action was filed. Last docket update was on Dec. 29th, 2025.

Original Complaint

Cross-Complaint

The Parties - Who Is Suing Or Being Sued?

Amanda Ghost - Award winning song writer and music executive. Ghost worked with Rebel Wilson on a film called The Deb and served as a producer for the film alongside Gregor Cameron, Rebel Wilson, and Vince Holden. Ghost is suing Rebel Wilson alongside Gregor Cameron and Vince Holden.

Gregor Cameron - British TV and film producer. Producer for The Deb. Suing Rebel Wilson alongside Amanda Ghost and Vince Holden. Married to Amanda Ghost.

Vince Holden - British film and television financial executive. Executive producer for The Deb. Suing Rebel Wilson alongside Amanda Ghost and Gregor Cameron.

Rebel Wilson - Australian actress known for her comedic roles. Produced and starred in The Deb. Later countersued Gregor Cameron, Vince Holden, and Amanda Ghost. Also sued by Charlotte MacInnes, an actress from The Deb, in an Australian suit.

Melissan Nathan - PR professional who owns The Agency Group (also known as TAG). Became part of an amended complaint by Ghost, Cameron, and Holden after information in the Lively v. Baldoni lawsuit revealed Nathan’s company may have built websites defaming Ghost at Wilson’s direction.

Jed Wallace - PR professional who works with TAG and who may have been involved with the aforementioned websites created which contained defamatory information about Ghost.

The Claims – Who Is Suing Who and What For?

Amanda Ghost, Gregor Cameron, and Vince Holden are suing Rebel Wilson for various defamatory statements the actress has made about them after a falling out of the production of the film The Deb. They allege Wilson told others Ghost sexually harassed Charlotte MacInnes, an actress from The Deb. MacInnes denies this ever happened. Wilson also told others Ghost, Cameron, and Holden embezzled funds from the film during its production.

In addition to statements Rebel Wilson herself made, Ghost now alleges in her amended complaint that Wilson also hired TAG (a PR team) to create defamatory websites about Ghost as well.

Rebel Wilson countersued Ghost, Cameron, and Holden for a variety of claims in response to them suing her for defamation. These claims include breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Claim For Ghost, Cameron, and Holden against Rebel:

Claim 1 - Defamation and Defamation Per Se. They allege Rebel Wilson made following defamatory statements or claims:

1. Plaintiffs sexually harassed a lead actress involved with The Deb.
2. Plaintiffs embezzled funds from The Deb for financial gain.
3. Plaintiffs engaged in inappropriate behavior towards the lead actress of the film.

Ghost also alleges that Wilson defamed her and others by directing Melissa Nathan, who owns TAG Pr and works for Wilson, to create negative websites about her. 

Claim For Rebel Wilson against Ghost, Cameron, and Holden:

Claim 1 - Breach of Contract. Wilson alleges she entered into a contract with Ghost, Cameron, and Holden to complete work for the film The Deb. She alleges they breached this contract by failing to uphold their end of the agreement. They failed to secure a label deal with Warner Bros, stole intellectual property, removed her writing credit, and blocked Wilson’s control over the release of the film’s soundtrack. They have also prevented Wilson from being reimbursed for development costs.

Claim 2 - Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Every contract has a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Wilson is alleging this was broken by Ghost, Cameron and Holden because they breached their contract in the ways mentioned above.

Claim 3 - Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Filed on behalf of Camp Sugar, Rebel Wilson’s company. Wilson alleges the producers embezzled money from The Deb. This breached their fiduciary duty to Camp Sugar. 

Claim 4 - False Imprisonment. On October 18th, 2023, Wilson alleges Cameron deprived her of movement by trapping her in a room and blocking her ingress and egress. He did not let her leave the room for over an hour and a half and made various threats during this time.

Claim 5 - Intentional Misrepresentation. Wilson alleges that the contract or agreement the producers wanted to enter in with her was always misrepresented. They never intended to form a partnership on good terms but only to exploit Wilson and steal intellectual property from her.

Claim 6 - Fraudulent Inducement. Wilson alleges that the agreement and the arrangement she entered with the producers was false and that they knew it was false. 

Claim 7 - Rescission Based on Undue Influence. Wilson alleges she was imprisoned, physically intimidated, verbally assaulted, and threatened by the producers which caused her great distress. Wilson argues she was intimidated into signing documents as a result of undue influence.

Claim 8 - Rescission Based on Duress. Wilson alleges she was imprisoned, physically intimidated, verbally assaulted, and threatened by the producers which caused her great distress. Wilson argues she was intimidated into signing documents under duress as a result.

Claim 9 - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Wilson alleges all of the above illustrate the extreme and outrageous conduct of the producers and their actions were intentional and led to her experience distress. She alleges they acted with malice and with intent to injure and damage her.

Where the Case Stands Now

Case is currently ongoing and set to go to trial on October 5th of this year in California. Wilson filed an anti-SLAPP motion in response to Ghost’s suit, but recently withdrew this motion.

Please feel free to leave corrections or suggestions for this post below. I have not followed the Ghost action as closely as I did the Lively action, I am sure there are things I may have missed and things that could be improved. 

This is a post template for future Cliff Notes posts. If anyone would like to make an informative post about a legal case they are interested in, you are welcome to copy and paste this format into a new post submission and fill it out.

Post Title - This should be the official name of the case as it appears on the docket (i.e., Lively v. Wayfarer)

Docket Link - Official Courtlistener link for the case where docket updates appear.

The Parties - Who Is Suing Or Being Sued?

Name of Party - Name of person, what they are being sued for, who they are being sued by. This can contain a brief summary of claims, or background information on who this person is and how they are connected to other parties listed here. i.e., Lively is suing Wayfarer, a production company responsible for filming the movie It Ends With Us, where Lively starred as the lead actress.

Name of Party - Name of another person, same criteria as above. 

*This section can also be used to identify people who are not being sued but who might be extremely relevant to the case. Like a key witness or someone of that nature.*

The Claims – Who Is Suing Who and What For?

Brief blurb explaining who is suing who, and a breakdown of why. You do not need to go in depth about the legal technicalities of the claims here. This is more of a quick and dirty overview of the parties and why they are at odds. More technical breakdowns of the claims can be done below, claim by claim.

Claim 1 - Preferably this information should come from one of the legal filings and be the technical claim that is being sued over. Feel free to elaborate on this claim as needed. You can just list the claim itself, or you can explain what is needed to meet the burden of proof for this specific claim or even touch on what information forms the basis for this claim being brought.

Claim 2 - Same as above. There should be a blurb for each claim in the lawsuit.

Where the Case Stands Now

This is a more fluid section. It’s important this is still neutral, but users can kind of give their own summary here of where the case stands. This can be as detailed or as brief as you would like. Has the case been dismissed? A date set for trial? You can link the most recent docket entry and explain it, or give dates on when key decisions will be made in the case. Or just summarize what has happened so far. 

Thank you to everyone who responded to last week’s Sub Update thread about expanding the sub. There were lots of great case suggestions and the mods have decided to open the sub to all of them, however there are a few main cases that we want to highlight.

Main Cases

1. Jen Abel v. Joneswork
2. Jed Wallace v. Lively
3. Harco v. Wayfarer
4. Popcorned Planet v. Lively
5. Ghost v. Wilson

For these cases we intend to build out case cliff note posts explaining what each suit is about and giving information on the claims and where the cases stand. We have some resources like these built out for the Lively case in the side bar, so we’re going to shoot to build the same type of resources for these cases and pin them in the same place.

However, the mods are probably busier now than we ever have been before and we probably aren’t going to be able to create all of these for each case very quickly. If there are any volunteers who are knowledgeable about the cases and want to create one of these posts for the sub we would be super grateful. The goal is to try and create posts that can provide users with a quick run down of the case and ideally get more people interested in following them the way we’ve followed the Lively v. Wayfarer cases. 

We have a template we’ve created for this process which is posted in another pinned thread. You are free to create your own format too, we just ask that a cliff notes post is written as neutrally as possible and includes at minimum the following information:

1. Link to the Main Docket - Courtlistener link so users can check the docket themselves.
2. Players of the Case - Who is involved, who is suing who.
3. Claims - The specific claims of the legal action.
4. Where the Case Stands Now - Brief blurb on what is currently happening / what stage the case is currently in. Can also cite/explain the most recent docket entry.

Other Cases

Any other cases are allowed to be discussed here, we just aren’t going to guarantee we will provide cliff note posts on them at this time. This might change as the case becomes more popular or if the sub seems super interested in a specific case. If a user wants to create a cliff note post for a case that is not a main case, that’s perfectly fine. You are welcome to use the template we've made or you can make your own.

Flairs

Most of our current flairs are centered on the Lively v. Wayfarer case and cases related to it. Until these cases have concluded we will leave up flairs related to them, but we’re also going to add flairs for the main cases listed above. This will hopefully help users quickly sort and filter the sub to see posts related to the cases you all are most interested in. 

Once the Lively v. Wayfarer and surrounding cases have been settled, we’ll likely retire some of the flairs related to that action so there are less flairs in general.

This sub was started to follow the drama related to It Ends With Us but those cases are winding down and we’ve realized we don’t necessarily want to close the sub once everything is officially settled or ruled on. This has become a great little community that we enjoy and we would love to keep it open but this means we may have to expand the sub just a bit. 

We’re still going to keep following the It Ends With Us lawsuits, but we wanted to reach out to the community and find out what other celebrity cases or lawsuits you might be interested in. We know there are already a large number of users interested in related cases like the Ghost v. Wilson case and we’ve been thinking about expanding to cover this too, but we’re also interested in what other cases interest users.

Please let us know what content you would like to see covered in this sub. It can be a lawsuit involving a famous celebrity, or just a lawsuit you feel is important on a larger scale. We might even be open to covering lawsuits that have already been concluded but that users might want deep dives on. We’re also curious in finding out how users feel about expanding what content we allow here. 

Historically we’ve pretty much only allowed postings of filings straight from the docket. We don’t allow CC posts or things of that nature. If we expanded to cover other lawsuits, would users prefer we keep this same restriction, or are users interested in seeing more varied coverage of the lawsuits discussed here? Do we want to see more discussion posts, or posts where users can ask open questions about ongoing lawsuits?

Please let us know in the comments!

Possible cases to cover:

• Russel Brand (Sexual assault allegations in the UK)
• Rebel Wilson (Multiple cases surrounding Ghost, Charlotte Macinnes)
• Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
• Harvey Weintsein and Jessica Mann

It’s become a trend in recent years for individuals who are accused of harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence, to sue their victims for defamation and prevent them from reporting or speaking about their experiences. The trend is incredibly harmful to victims because it prevents them from coming forward and often results in them facing serious financial and reputational harm at the hands of their abuser.

This trend largely originated or was made popular by the Depp v Heard lawsuit. In 2022, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation for an op-ed she had penned about her personal experiences. She wrote about the importance of protecting victims and the way society often lashes at victims. She never mentions Johnny Depp by name, nor lists any specific actions Depp took against her. 

And yet, Depp sued her and claimed that the article caused damage to his reputation and cost him movie roles and ultimately tanked his career. Depp sued Amber Heard for several times her net worth, and dragged her through a lengthy legal process that ultimately resulted in her being publicly shamed and dragged for statements that never referred to Depp. 

Amber Heard spoke only about her own experiences and feelings, and did not disparage anyone by name or implication. Yet she was punished through a defamatory lawsuit and trial that retraumatized her and made her relive many of those same negative experiences, all while draining her financially and damaging her reputation.

This very same type of lawsuit has been used in countless cases by abusers to silence their victims and prevent them from talking about their own experiences or in some cases punishing them for simply reporting the abuse even if it’s to proper authorities.

An example is a slew of defamation cases on college campuses led by professors against students who have alleged sexual harassment. Elyse Dorsey and Angela Landry were sued by their professor Joshua Wright for coming forward and making complaints about Wright’s inappropriate conduct towards them. Both students alleged that Wright pressured them to engage in non-consensual relationships in exchange for advancing their careers. Both women allege they feared to end the relationships for the repercussions Wright could inflict on them.

In response to these allegations, Wright sued both women for defamation. Dorsey ended up settling before trial, and Wright later dropped the remaining claims against Landry. However, the outcome is disappointing as it represents an instance when not one but two women were silenced and punished for speaking on their personal experiences.

In a country where free speech is a cornerstone of our constitution, why are individuals allowed to silence others for speaking about things that have happened to them?

What happened to Elyse Dorsey, Amanda Landry, and Amber Heard is only the start of a widespread social issue happening everywhere. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence are already underreported, but the trend of weaponizing the legal system to further discourage and silence women who do come forward exacerbates the issue to new levels.

Survivors own the things that have happened to them and deserve to have their voices protected when they choose to speak on these issues or report these issues.

In Blake Lively’s case, she has never given a public statement alleging harassment. All of her own allegations come from her lawsuit she filed. And yet even though she filed a lawsuit and tried to seek justice through the legal system instead of socal media, she was still sued for defamation by Justin Baldoni for not even speaking on her experiences but for simply reporting the sexual harassment and misconduct at all.

People like Justin Baldoni should not be allowed to retaliate against victims to silence them and punish them for coming forward, and an important law connected to Blake Lively’s case could be the first step to fixing this glaring issue in our legal system.

47.1 is a statute passed in California in 2023 that seeks to protect victims from retaliatory defamation suits like the ones filed against Dorsey, Landry, Heard, and Lively. Those who filed defamatory lawsuits in response to allegations of sexual harassment, assault, or domestic violence, can end up having their suit thrown out and being ordered to pay their victim attorney fees and treble damages if the victim can prove that the claims they made were made in good faith and without malice. 

This law is the first of its kind and Lively’s lawsuit is the first case to which the law has been applied. No ruling has been issued yet, but the ruling will be pivotal to protecting victims and preserving their voices. Survivors of harassment, assault, and abuse should be able to come forward without the threat of their abuser weaponizing the legal system to silence them. 

A win for Lively on 47.1 is a win not just for her, but for all victims who fear speaking on their experience or reporting misconduct. 

Other women who were sued for defamation after coming forward:

• Kesha (sued by Dr. Luke)
• Taylor Swift (sued by David Mueller)
• Melanie Kohler (sued by Brett Ratner)
• Evan Rachel Wood (sued by Marilyn Manson)
• Illma Fore (sued by Marilyn Manson)
• Pamela Lopez (sued by Matt Dababneh)
• Monique Green (sued by Nelly)
• Brittney Taylor (sued by Antonio Brown)
• Jorgen Nielsen (sued by Steve Wynn)
• Leigh Corfman (sued by Roy Moore)
• Cara Taylor (sued by Daylin Leach)

I originally wrote this up for a friend who knows I have followed this case and was interested in learning what it was about. I realized that this might be helpful for people who haven't read past the headlines, so I jazzed it up a bit to make it into a post. This explains in the broadest of strokes what Lively's lawsuit is about, and why it matters (or should matter) to the average person.

---

The long lived legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni finally has an end in sight, but what most people don’t seem to realize is that the seemingly endless conflict is far more than a silly celebrity feud.

At the core of it, Blake Lively’s lawsuit against Justin Baldoni and his PR team is about the right to a safe working environment, and the right to raise concerns about harassment without being retaliated against. 

Lively’s lawsuit is exceedingly simple. She—and multiple other women on the set of It Ends With Us—experienced sexual harassment by Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath, and all raised concerns about the conduct and behavior. Only there wasn’t a single HR person hired to work on the production of the film. All HR related complaints were funneled up the chain of Wayfarer studios, to Justin Baldoni (the co-owner of the studio) and Jamey Heath (the CEO), the very individuals that those on set were raising concerns about.

How would the average person feel if they raised a concern at work about sexual harassment, only to find out that the person who harassed them is the one who handles complaints? It’s very easy to see how problematic that would be, and it’s exactly what happened to Blake Lively and others who raised concerns on set.

Counting HR Complaints Like Trump Counted COVID Cases

(There Can’t Be HR Complaints If There Is No HR)

Legally, Wayfarer (and Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath), were obligated to investigate any and all concerns that they were made aware of. We know now from various documents and filings on the legal docket that Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath were both fully aware of the issues on set and even went so far as to issue apologies and promise to do better in response to being made aware of them. But they never launched an official investigation, never brought in any HR personnel to document issues, and continued to engage in the behaviors on set despite the mounting number of complaints and increasingly toxic work environment. Baldoni himself went so far as to make a joke when Jenny Slate expressed discomfort at him telling Blake Lively she looked sexy during prep for a scene. After he was called out for commenting on his employee’s body, Baldoni rolled his eyes and told a group of cast and crew including Lively and Slate, “sorry I missed the HR meeting.”

In fact, most of the cast had missed the meeting because it was never held to begin with. Wayfarer studios was responsible for handling HR concerns and providing guidance to those on set, but despite having a PowerPoint presentation for this very purpose many of the cast who were deposed stated under oath that they had never been shown the content or given information on how to file complaints or who to contact in the event they had concerns.

What sort of workplace is so stacked against its employees? There is no harassment training even though this is standard in nearly every workplace and included in employee handbooks and manuals. But not only is there no training, there’s also no HR department, and all HR concerns are relayed to the co-owner and CEO of the company, who have a vested interest in suppressing complaints. Especially when the complaints are against themselves.

Alex Saks, a producer for the film, even testified during her deposition that when she first began relaying concerns about the issues on set to Jamey Heath he was receptive and apologetic. But as filming continued, Heath later informed her that it would be very bad for them if any of the complaints were in writing and implied they should not be documented.

A prevailing talking point related to this case has been that there were no HR complaints ever filed on set. Legal filings and evidence in this case prove concerns were raised, but Baldoni dismissed them, and Heath actively discouraged others from documenting them because he feared it would make them look bad.

There can’t be HR complaints if you don’t allow anyone to formally file them.

There Isn’t A Bring Your Porn Addiction To Work Day

(Someone Should Have Made Sure Justin Baldoni Knew This)

The concerns raised on set cover a series of interactions that range from things that could be written off as an awkward misunderstanding, to things that would make the head of Wayfarer’s HR (if they actually had one) lose their shit. For reference, here’s an assortment of things that happened on set. This is not an exhaustive list but only a snapshot of some of the behaviors. The judge ruling on this lawsuit acknowledged that each of these issues could reasonably constitute or contribute to a hostile work environment:

• Baldoni remarking on Lively and Slate’s appearance and referring to them multiple times as sexy
• Baldoni making a joke (as quoted above) when Slate spoke up and said commenting on actors’ bodies wasn’t appropriate or necessary
• Baldoni telling Slate, “I can say this because my wife is here, but you look sexy in what you’re wearing.”
• Heath entering Lively’s trailer while she was wearing only a thong. Heath knocked and was told by four women NOT to enter the trailer. He proceeded to do so anyway.
• Heath insisting Lively must allow him into her trailer or he would not meet with her to discuss her concerns. Then proceeding to stare at her naked body in a mirror.
• Heath and Baldoni insisting that Lively must be fully naked in order to film a birth scene. No nudity was written into the script, and according to SAG all scenes of this nature require prior written consent from the actor or actress. This was NOT obtained for this scene.
• Baldoni telling Lively that he and his wife orgasm together, and asking if she and Ryan Reynolds do as well.
• Baldoni telling Lively he knew all about porn because of his porn addiction.
• Baldoni reassuring Lively that the sexually explicit scenes he had added to the script without her consent were not porny. He—the guy with a porn addiction—would definitely know if they were porny.
• Baldoni relaying to cast and crew that Lively doesn’t watch porn (like Baldoni)

“So much fear of Blake coming out and going public about how I’m a bad person and unsafe and not who I say I am”

(A Real Live Text Justin Baldoni Sent To Other People)

Despite Justin Baldoni originally claiming that he was never aware of any complaints made on set, he later sent text messages to his PR team and Jamey Heath saying he was worried about the things Lively could say about him publicly, and how those things would be viewed. He was fully aware at this point that his actions were wrong and he was terrified other people might find out what he’d done.

So what did he do about it?

This is the part where normal people would take accountability, apologize, and finally hire the HR personnel they desperately needed to handle the concerns. Instead of doing this, Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath doubled down on their own behaviors and hired a crisis PR team right around the time promotion for the film ramped up.

They hired a PR team that wrote that “we can bury her,” and then proceeded to do exactly that. If you step back for a second and really think about it, the PR campaign is actually excellent. None of the facts in the legal filings make Baldoni look good. He never even really denies engaging in many of the alleged behaviors. His defense since the beginning has always been that hey, these things happened, but Blake Lively is kind of a bitch, so…

And it’s worked astonishingly well. The average person can’t state what the major claims are in her case, nor do they know most of the information covered in this breakdown (Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath handling their own HR complaints, the lack of harassment training in general, the fact that multiple women testified under oath in their depositions to Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath’s behaviors, the laundry list of things that are clearly sexual harassment).

A quick cruise across the internet or social media concerning this topic dredges up countless click bait articles, acerbicly titled videos, and assorted Tik Tok personalities offering legal breakdowns despite having no legal expertise. The vast majority of this content is anti-Lively, and curiously features the same set of talking points. Lively is a bully, Lively is a mean girl, Lively is tone deaf, Lively lied about everything, Lively stole the movie, Lively is a bitch. There are no facts to be found, and the biggest concerns seem to be where Lively got married, or how Lively behaved in an interview recorded over a decade ago. 

Content creators and Tik Tok “lawyers” have made coverage of this case their entire personality and appear to be more credible sources of information. They often pick through the actual legal filings on their videos, but they rarely evaluate the legal filings in their entirety. Instead, they zero in on specific and often irrelevant details and hyperfixate on them to create a narrative that ignores much of the information on the legal docket. An example is VanZan, or VanSham, which is what a lot of content creators called a subpoena that was filed by Lively before she sued Justin Baldoni.

This subpoena was lawful and filed by an entity owned by Blake Lively and Reybolds and it was used to collect some of the earliest information on the smear campaign. CC’s claimed for months on end that there never was a subpoena, that Lively had illegally obtained information, that her entire case was about to be thrown out, her lawyers would be sanctioned, and Lively might even be thrown into jail! This was the nail in the coffin of Blake Lively’s case. 

Except after weeks of fervently proclaiming this everyone suddenly stopped talking about it and never mentioned it again. VanZan was nothing but content for the PR cycle, and the moment the topic had served its purpose, content creators completely blocked out this supposedly pivotal part of the case in favor of harping on the next big thing (like Taylor Swift, her texts, and oh yeah her deposition that never happened).

In defense of the smear campaign accusation, Juistin Baldoni and his PR team insisted that the backlash against Lively has been purely organic. But what about that pesky paper trail that leads directly from Justin Baldoni’s team to various content creators who have profited off their coverage of this case?

For example, Popcorned Planet, a YouTube channel run by a creator who was himself accused of sexual harassment, boldly claimed that he had no contact with Justin Baldoni’s legal or PR team. However, a judge in Florida revealed that he had actually exchanged hundreds of messages with a member of Baldoni’s PR team. 

Another filing revealed that Bryan Freedman, Justin Baldoni’s lawyer, sent information directly to Sage Steele, who runs a YouTube channel called The Sage Steele Show. The creator posted a lengthy episode titled “Shame on Blake Lively and the New York Times,” where she relays disparaging information about Blake Lively at Freedman’s direction.
Maybe not everyone likes Blake Lively, but not this many people hate her. There’s a busy busy busy PR team that wants to make the world believe she’s the absolute worst, but she’s just not the witch they’ve made her out to be.

You Probably Forgot What We Were Talking About

(Girl keep up, It’s About Your Right To a Safe Workplace)

Blake Lively raised valid concerns about inappropriate behaviour at work, but instead of investigating these complaints as he was legally obligated to do, Baldoni dismissed the concerns and made jokes about them. 

Then, after months of bad behavior, Justin Baldoni panicked because he finally realized that sexual harassment is in fact, a pretty bad look. Especially when you’ve built your brand on being a feminist. Justin Baldoni then hired a crisis PR team “to bury” Blake Lively in the press and silence her.

The thing is… Blake Lively has to date never given a public interview or statement discussing the things that occurred on set. Even during filming, she never relayed to those outside of a select few close friends and colleagues what was happening. She completed the press and promotional tour for the movie and never publicly spoke a single bad word about Justin Baldoni during that time. The only reason anyone knows about the allegations is because Lively filed a lawsuit about them, and began the litigation process.

Lively just wanted what most people want—to be able to go to work and do their job without being harassed—but Justin Baldoni and his colleagues failed to create a safe workplace and investigate complaints even though they were legally obligated to do so.

To add insult to injury, they retaliated against Lively because they were scared she might do something crazy like tell people who they actually were. This is also illegal, because reporting sexual harassment or forms of discrimination is a protected activity. You cannot and should not be punished for raising concerns, but Lively’s reputation is currently in tatters because of Baldoni’s crisis PR team and their efforts to punish and silence her for raising concerns on set.

The thing about the Lively lawsuit is that it comes off as a silly celebrity feud, but for women in particular, Lively’s case is a kind of horror story about what can happen when you raise valid concerns about harassment. Legally everyone in the workplace is supposed to be able to come forward and raise complaints about things like sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination without threat of retaliation. But when Lively spoke up, Justin Baldoni retaliated by trying to silence her. Even with so many facts on Lively’s side, her legal battle has been a lengthy struggle that still may not end in her favor.

If Blake Lively—a Met Gala darling, an A-List celebrity, a wealthy and privileged individual—can’t land a resounding victory in court for what is clear sexual harassment and retaliation, what hope does anyone else have? 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1433.0.pdf

Unsealed versions of some documents were filed last night. The documents include:

• The Wayfarer Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of the Wayfarer Parties’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff’s Proffered Experts (Dkt. 1321) and Exhibits 3-4, 6, 17-19, 21-22, 24-26, 28-33, and 36-47 to the Declaration of Ellyn S. Garofalo submitted concurrently therewith (Dkt. 1331-3 – 1331-4, 1331-6, [1331-17 – 1331-19](tel:1331-17 – 1331-19), [1331-21 – 1331-22](tel:1331-21 – 1331-22), [1331-24 – 1331-26](tel:1331-24 – 1331-26), [1331-29 – 1331-34](tel:1331-29 – 1331-34), [1331-37 – 1331-48](tel:1331-37 – 1331-48));

• The Wayfarer Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of the Wayfarer Parties’ Motions in Limine (Dkt. 1312) and Exhibits A-F, H-K, and O-Q to the Declaration of Ellyn S. Garofalo submitted concurrently therewith (Dkt. 1328-1 – 1328-10, [1328-12 – 1328-16](tel:1328-12 – 1328-16), [1328-19 – 1328-21](tel:1328-19 – 1328-21));

• The Wayfarer Parites’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff Blake Lively’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defense Expert Nicole M. Alexander (Dkt. 1385) and Exhibits 1 and 4 to the Declaration of Alexandra A.E. Shapiro filed concurrently therewith (Dkt. 1384-1, 1384-4); and

• The Wayfarer Parties’ Opposition to Plaintiff Blake Lively’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Michael J. Wagner (Dkt. 1396) and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ellyn S. Garofalo submitted concurrently therewith (Dkt. 1398-1).

Links to the unsealed documents:

Main Document - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.0_1.pdf

Attachment 1 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.1.pdf

Attachment 2 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.2.pdf

Attachment 3 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.3.pdf

Attachment 4 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.4.pdf

Attachment 5 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.5.pdf

Attachment 6 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.6.pdf

Attachment 7 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.7.pdf

Attachment 8 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.8.pdf

Attachment 9 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.9.pdf

Attachment 10 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.10.pdf

Attachment 11 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.11.pdf

Attachment 12 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.12.pdf

Attachment 13 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.13.pdf

Attachment 14 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.14.pdf

Attachment 15 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.15.pdf

Attachment 16 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.16.pdf

Attachment 17 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.17.pdf

Attachment 18 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.18.pdf

Attachment 19 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.19.pdf

Attachment 20 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.20.pdf

Attachment 21 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.21.pdf

Attachment 22 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.22.pdf

Attachment 23 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.23.pdf

Attachment 24 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.24.pdf

Attachment 25 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.25.pdf

Attachment 26 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.26.pdf

Attachment 27 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.27.pdf

Attachment 28 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.28.pdf

Attachment 29 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.29.pdf

Attachment 30 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.30.pdf

Attachment 31 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.31.pdf

Attachment 32 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.32.pdf

Attachment 33 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.33.pdf

Attachment 34 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.34_1.pdf

Attachment 35 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.35.pdf

Attachment 36 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.36.pdf

Attachment 37 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.37.pdf

Attachment 38 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.38.pdf

Attachment 39 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.39.pdf

Attachment 40 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.40.pdf

Attachment 41 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.41.pdf

Attachment 42 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.42.pdf

Attachment 43 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.43.pdf

Attachment 44 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.45.pdf

Attachment 45 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.45.pdf

Attachment 46 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.46.pdf

Attachment 47 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.47.pdf

Attachment 48 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.48.pdf

Attachment 49 – https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.49.pdf

Attachment 50 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1431.50.pdf

The mod team is aware of some issues viewing threads and comments on this sub. We want to thank everyone who has reached out either via modmail or in threads to let us know about this issue. We adjusted some settings earlier this week to try and fix the issue, but it seems like it’s still occurring.

To try and address the problem we are going to temporarily disable contest mode for new threads for the next few days. This means votes will be visible to all. In the spirit of keeping this sub neutral and welcoming to all, we ask that users avoid downvoting comments to prevent them from becoming collapsed or buried in threads. You are free to upvote things, but ideally we hope not to see comments end up with negative voting scores.

We also ask that the community help us by letting us know if they are continuing to have this issue moving forward or if it resolves for you. You can drop comments into this thread to let us know how things are working for you, or you can hit us up in modmail. Either works and we really appreciate anyone who takes the time to do this. We have a few settings we can tweak and modify, but it’s sometimes hard to tell if what we’re doing is helping or not. Feedback will help us immensely!

If you could let us know:

• If this is only happening to you on desktop or mobile or both.

• If this is happening in specific threads (you can also link those threads here directly if you would like).

• If the issue has resolved since this change was made, or if it is ongoing.