“Tell the truth about what’s happening to you and suddenly everyone wants to discuss your tone, your credibility, your motives, your sanity, anything except what you actually f***ing said.”
This was originally posted by “Rebellious Merch” on FB.
Supporting an accused perpetrator or questioning allegations may feel like a personal opinion, but those messages can affect whether victim-survivors feel believed and safe speaking about their own experiences.
Something worth keeping in mind when discussing allegations online.
Judge Lewis J. Liman has directed the parties to refile public versions of previously sealed exhibits by August 24, 2026. This order requires the parties to ensure these filings are appropriately redacted to remove personally identifying information (PII) and other sensitive material in a manner consistent with the court's earlier mandates.
The court has noted that because the parties failed to explicitly address a long list of prior sealing motions, specifically Dkt. Nos. 128, 157, 175, 181, 183, 202, 207, and 215, those requests are considered waived. The Clerk of Court has been directed to close those specific docket entries.
Jones Parties states that they do not require any continued sealing for their previous motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 162, 165, 190, 204, and 222).
However, they note that upon any refiling, they will still redact personally identifying information (PII) such as phone numbers, email addresses, and personal pictures, in accordance with the Court's previous orders.
Wayfarer defendants are requesting to maintain redaction's and continued sealing of specific potions of the following exhibits:
Reasons for sealing
Exhibit B: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.1.pdf
Exhibit 7: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.2.pdf
Exhibit 8: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.3.pdf
Exhibit 13: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.4.pdf
Steph Jones letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.258.0.pdf
Wayfarer/TAG letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.0.pdf
Exhibit 8 is IMO damning for TAG!
Blake thanked the actresses for “all the joy you have brought so many.”
It is deeply saddening to learn of Haydn’s passing. I was so moved by her recent interview on Jay Shetty’s podcast. I just finished reading her book which was equally heartbreaking and inspiring. My condolences to her little girl and all of those that knew and loved her. 💕
"Baking with genius food friends and their kitchen mixer the size of a car... this is what my happy place looks like."
You can just see how much genuine joy she finds in the process. For her, the kitchen isn't just about cooking, it's a true creative sanctuary where she gets to experiment, play, and lose herself in the art of making something wonderful! 💕
“We’re the golden ones, we’re special! Now follow the f***ing script” 😂😂😂😂
During Marvel Studios' D23 presentation, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman appeared in a humorous promotional video where they playfully "competed" for a spot in the massive multiversal crossover, confirming that both characters will join the fight alongside the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men.
I just know Blake’s outfit for the Premiere will be 🔥 I love to see good things happen for good people ❤️
Lively has filed her response to Wallace's Appeal, pushing to uphold the Texas District Court's dismissal.
Here is a quick summary of the core arguments:
Ultimately, Lively's brief leans heavily on the idea that Wallace is trying to force a New York resident into an inconvenient, out-of-state forum over a dispute rooted in California administrative filings. With the legal chess match continuing to play out across multiple fronts, this appeal will be a crucial test of how strictly the Fifth Circuit guards its jurisdictional and venue boundaries.
Read the full brief here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.56.0.pdf
Wallace's Appellate brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.45.0.pdf
In her opposition to the Wallace Parties’ motion for discovery (Docket Entry 62), Lively's legal team argues that the request to depose her a second time is both untimely and meritless. Lively points out that the Wallace Parties waited nearly three months after briefing closed to seek a "do-over," having knowingly and voluntarily waived any right to further discovery by failing to act during the proper window. Furthermore, Lively refutes their core justification, that they need to examine her malice regarding "allegations of sexual harassment," by clarifying that the premise is entirely false: she has never accused Jed Wallace of sexual harassment. Instead, she notes that their defamation claims rely solely on a legal caption rather than the actual substance of her administrative complaint, which focused exclusively on retaliation and which they have already thoroughly questioned her about in a prior deposition.
The Wallace Parties attempted to justify their three-month delay by pointing out that a court in the Southern District of New York recently agreed with the arguments Ms. Lively raised in her April 27 fee motion regarding the burden of proving malice. However, Lively's opposition notes that they were fully aware of those arguments all along and could have attached evidence, requested a hearing, or sought further discovery by their original opposition deadline on May 11, rather than trying to use a favorable ruling in another jurisdiction as an excuse for a late "do-over."
Lively's legal team points out that the Wallace Parties' counsel thoroughly questioned her during her 2025 deposition regarding the exact documents at issue, failing to identify any genuinely new information they need to uncover. Furthermore, while the Wallace Parties concede that discovery for a fee motion requires court permission, they spent weeks trying to enforce a deposition notice without ever seeking that leave, making their accusations that Lively acted improperly both frivolous and hypocritical. Characterising this maneuver as a bad-faith attempt to smear her character and pressure her into dropping her claims, Lively asks the Court to deny the motion and add the fees incurred in responding to her Section 47.1 award.
Court filing:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.0.pdf
Deposition excerpt:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.1.pdf
Exhibit B: Read these emails!https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.2.pdf
Laura Lee Prather declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.3.pdf
Michael Gottlieb declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.4.pdf
What makes the article particularly interesting is her honesty about the initial media cycle, she admits that when the initial backlash dropped against Blake Lively (much like with Amber Heard), she initially bought into the idea that there were valid reasons for the hate, until a deep-dive podcast episode (Shameless Media's coverage of The It Ends With Us mess) forced her to re-examine how the narrative was actually being engineered.
From there, she breaks down the mechanics of "astroturfing," character assassination, and why we keep falling for the trap of treating these multi-million dollar PR campaigns like a simple back-and-forth tennis match.
Vituscka alleges that Daily Mail executives and legal counsel improperly pressured and coerced him into executing an incomplete, misleading sworn declaration regarding his text messages about publicist Leslie Sloane. He further claims that after he raised internal ethical objections to the statement and submitted a whistleblower report, the outlet terminated his employment in unlawful retaliation.
Causes of Action:
Statutory violation of state whistleblower protection laws (e.g., NY Labor Law § 740).
Vituscka asserts that he engaged in protected whistleblower activity when he formally reported and objected to internal misconduct regarding the draft subpoena declaration. He claims his sudden termination was direct, unlawful retaliation for reporting that the outlet was pressuring a employee-witness to submit a misleading statement under penalty of perjury.
Fraudulent inducement / Breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The filing claims Daily Mail management and corporate counsel coerced him into signing his initial June 2025 declaration. Vituscka alleges he was induced to sign an incomplete statement drafted primarily to shield the outlet and third-party PR contacts (such as Leslie Sloane) from broader discovery and depositions, despite his explicit warnings that the draft omitted critical context.
Breach of contract and failure to provide independent legal counsel.
Vituscka contends that when he was dragged into the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation as a third-party witness purely due to his reporting duties, the Daily Mail had a legal and contractual duty to protect his interests. Instead, he claims the company prioritised its corporate relationships over his defense, creating an irreconcilable conflict of interest by steering his testimony without offering him unconflicted, independent representation.
Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage / Injurious falsehood.
The complaint alleges that the Daily Mail’s public positioning and subsequent termination of Vituscka framed him as a rogue reporter acting outside journalistic norms. Vituscka claims this publicly destroyed his journalistic credibility, torpedoed his career, and caused severe financial, emotional, and reputational damages.
1st declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf
2nd declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.0.pdf
Court filing: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=S_PLUS_X/dAjbdeJOY0K45ADgQQ==
She’s wearing two layered, shell and gemstone necklaces from Klass’s collection.
I love how she constantly mixes ultra-high-end luxury with smaller, independent women-led artisan brands on her personal platform. What do we think of these beachy pieces?
I just had a look through the website, there is some stunning pieces.
This post has made my weekend! Happy Saturday everyone! Have a wonderful weekend ❤️
Due to Lively v Wayfarer settling before trial, Harco's amended pleading tightens their arguments about why they shouldn't have to foot the bill for Wayfarer's defense or any settlement payouts.
Harco doubles down on its contention that Wayfarer knew about the potential claims long before applying for/renewing their policy coverage. Harco points specifically to the November 9th, 2023 demand letter sent from Lively's legal team. They argue the demand letter formally put Baldoni, Wayfarer, and Heath on notice of alleged sexual harassment and retaliation claims.
Harco asserts that Lively’s initial California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint (Dec 2024), her federal lawsuit (Dec 2024), and the pre-suit communications in 2023 all stem from a "single series of continuous or related wrongful acts.
The complaint highlights that intentional retaliation and intentional harassment fall outside the scope of standard liability protection. Harco argues that because the core allegations against the Wayfarer parties involved deliberate public relations warfare and intentional retaliation, the policy exclusions apply automatically.
Harco attached the redacted Policy Renewal Application (Exhibit C) to demonstrate that Wayfarer executives affirmatively checked "No" to questions asking whether any officer, director, or entity was aware of facts or circumstances that could reasonably give rise to a claim. Harco argues this constitutes a material misrepresentation on the policy application, providing independent grounds to deny coverage or rescind aspects of the policy.
Harco highlights that Independent Contractors are excluded from standard employment practices coverage unless specifically endorsed or hired under precise written terms that qualify them for coverage under the policy’s definitions.
Not the IC status coming back to haunt Wayfarer lol.
Read the filing here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.0.pdf
Exhibit C: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.3.pdf
Blake Brown Beauty is set to launch Curly Hair Collection! “The teaser quickly garnered attention and sparked excitement online, with fans flooding social media with overwhelmingly positive, hyped and playful reactions, praising the launch, expressing strong anticipation for curly hair products, and sharing long-awaited excitement for the upcoming drop.”
Link to the article: https://www.geo.tv/latest/676395-blake-lively-finds-new-focus-amid-justin-baldoni-legal-drama
Jed Wallace is requesting the court to order Blake to sit for an oral deposition, arguing that direct examination is necessary to evaluate claims surrounding damages, alleged malice, and underlying communications. Wallace's team goes on to say they are entitled to depose Lively to show whether actual malice or lack of privilege applies, which impacts fee eligibility and liability.
Wallace contends that previous deposition testimony or limited discovery conducted during earlier phases (such as jurisdiction discovery) did not fully cover the specific damages and fee shifting issues now before the court.
Interestingly, Babcock alleges that prior to and alongside litigation, Lively's team sent Wallace threatening and aggressive communications. Threatening legal action and severe publicity/fee consequences against Wallace. However, they did not add these alleged communications which i cant understand. If they exist why omit them?
Lively’s legal team maintains that the Texas proceeding lacks jurisdiction over her, that her statements and initial filings are protected privileged communications, and that compelling additional deposition testimony in Texas is improper and burdensome given the history of the parallel New York and California proceedings.
Read the full filing here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.0.pdf
Deposition 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
Blake wearing Oscar de la Renta to a SAG-AFTRA screening of the movie Barbie, to support her friend America Ferrera.
Love the hair spraying out the car window 😂
She looks amazing! Happy, Healthy and unbothered 💅