u/Pale-Detective-7440

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace moves for a leave to file Rebuttal Evidence in support of his Reply u/same-difference-ave

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files a response to Blake Lively’s Opposition to his Deposition request u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Wallace Seeks Permission to File New Rebuttal Evidence (0:00–0:52)

• Blake Lively’s Texas dispute with Jed Wallace continues, with Wallace’s attorney filing a motion seeking permission to submit rebuttal evidence.
• The request responds to arguments Lively made while opposing Wallace’s motion to compel her deposition.
• Wallace wants the court to consider additional portions of Lively’s deposition transcript from Lively v. Wayfarer, along with email exchanges between Babcock and Lively’s attorneys.
• According to LGA, the evidence is intended to directly rebut claims Lively made in her opposition.

⏱️ Lively Says Wallace Already Had His Chance to Depose Her (0:52–1:38)

• Lively’s opposition argued that Wallace already had an opportunity to question her during her deposition in the New York litigation.
• Her side also raised arguments concerning Wallace’s previous efforts or alleged lack of efforts to obtain discovery in the Texas case.
• Wallace disputes that characterization and argues the newly submitted transcript demonstrates that his questioning of Lively was strictly limited in both time and scope.
• Babcock’s position is that Jed's previous opportunity was not sufficient to investigate the issue now relevant to Lively’s California Civil Code §47.1 fee request: malice.

🕖 The Transcript Shows Babcock Received About One Hour (1:38–2:48)

• LGA says the newly revealed transcript provides more detail about the strict seven-hour limit imposed on Lively’s deposition.
• Babcock began questioning Lively at approximately 6:42 p.m.
• At approximately 7:44 p.m., Lively’s attorney said the seven-hour limit had been reached and ended the deposition.
• When Babcock attempted to ask two additional questions, Lively’s counsel refused and stated that the deposition was being adjourned.
• LGA highlights this because Wallace is now arguing that his previous opportunity to question Lively amounted to only about one hour.

📜 Babcock Preserved His Request for More Deposition Time (2:48–4:18)

• Before the deposition concluded, Babcock made a statement on the record objecting to the limited time available to Wallace.
• He noted that an amended complaint containing significant changes had been provided shortly before the deposition and said Wallace had only been permitted approximately one hour of questioning.
• Importantly, Babcock expressly stated that Wallace could later seek a court order reconvening Lively’s deposition if necessary.
• Lively’s attorney responded that the court had already established a single seven-hour deposition and that Wallace’s counsel had previously indicated one hour would be sufficient.
• Her side maintained that Wallace could have asked whatever relevant questions he wanted during that allocated hour.
• Babcock responded that if Wallace remained in the litigation, they might seek additional time later, which is exactly what Jed is now doing.

🎯 Wallace Says the First Deposition Wasn't About Malice (4:18–5:31)

• Babcock argues that Wallace’s previous questioning was focused primarily on personal jurisdiction and issues relevant to the earlier litigation, rather than developing evidence concerning Lively’s state of mind or alleged malice.
• Wallace now argues that malice has become important because Lively is seeking attorney’s fees under §47.1.
• Babcock points to his earlier statement on the deposition record as evidence that Wallace preserved the possibility of seeking additional questioning.
• He also submitted email exchanges from June and July to rebut Lively’s arguments concerning previous communications about discovery.
• LGA believes the requested evidence is narrowly tailored to the specific factual assertions made in Lively’s opposition.

🔎 New Deposition Testimony: Lively Points to Stephanie Jones (5:31–6:51)

• The filing also reveals previously unseen portions of Lively’s deposition concerning Jed Wallace’s work.
• Lively had previously described Wallace’s work as “clandestine,” prompting Babcock to ask who had given her that characterization.
• According to the newly revealed testimony, Lively identified Stephanie Jones as someone who told her about the nature of Wallace’s work and how he operated.
• Lively also referenced attorneys and later indicated she may have seen messages involving Jennifer Abel or Melissa Nathan.
• Why was Stephanie Jones communicating with Blake Lively, and when did those communications occur?

📄 More of Lively’s Deposition Remains Redacted (6:51–7:42)

• LGA cautions that the filing does not suddenly reveal Lively’s entire deposition.
• Significant portions remain redacted, meaning additional information remains unavailable**,** and its importance cannot yet be determined.
• She also highlights a lighter exchange in which Babcock questioned Lively about Wallace and Street Relations being named in her California CRD complaint.
• After referring sarcastically to Lively’s attorney Esra Hudson as her “outstanding lawyer,” Hudson objected.

🔥 LGA Thinks the Texas Fight Is Becoming Riskier for Lively (7:42–8:30)

• LGA thinks that Lively may continue pursuing the Texas fee dispute until Judge Liman rules on her fee request in New York.
• LGA speculates that if Lively receives a substantial award that produces favorable headlines, Lively could potentially decide that continuing to pursue fees against Wallace is no longer worthwhile.
• However, LGA believes the Texas litigation is currently moving in an increasingly risky direction for Lively.
• If the Texas court grants Wallace’s request for limited discovery, Lively could be required to sit for another deposition, this time focused on issues relevant to malice and §47.1.

⚖️🔓 Little Girl Attorney - Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel Update: Judge Liman Orders Documents Unsealed as Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss Jones’ Lingering John Doe Defamation Claim

🥱😴😑🫩NotActuallyGolden - Stephanie Jones’ “Dead” Defamation Claim: Wayfarer Asks Judge Liman to Finally Dismiss the John Doe Claim After Jones Failed to Drop It

📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Wayfarer’s Motion a “Duh Moment” (0:01–0:22)

• NAG describes the latest motion in Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel as fairly straightforward.
• The defendants are essentially telling the court that Stephanie Jones has a “dead claim” still sitting on the docket.
• Jones had previously indicated that the claim would be dismissed, but because that apparently never happened, the defendants are now asking Judge Liman to formally dismiss it.

🌐 The John Doe Defamation Claim & the Stephanie Jones Websites (0:22–1:12)

• One of Stephanie Jones’ original claims was a defamation claim against John Does 1–10, unidentified defendants she alleged were connected to StephanieJonesLeaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Jones suspected that Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan had some involvement but initially needed discovery to determine who could actually be held responsible.
• After obtaining discovery, Jones eventually sought to amend her complaint and replace the unidentified John Doe defendant with Melissa Nathan.
• According to NAG, Jones was essentially attempting to allege that Nathan was legally responsible for the websites rather than continuing against unidentified defendants.

🚫 Judge Liman Previously Refused to Let Jones Add Melissa Nathan (1:12–1:40)

• The problem, NAG explains, was timing: Jones sought to amend the complaint after the deadline for amending pleadings had passed.
• Judge Liman found that Jones had possessed the relevant information for months and could have sought the amendment earlier.
• The court therefore denied her request to substitute Melissa Nathan for the John Doe defendant.
• As a result, Jones was left with a claim against unidentified people whom she could no longer replace with the person she wanted to name.

💀 NAG Says the Claim Is Essentially “Dead” (1:40–2:05)

• NAG says this leaves the defamation claim in an unusual but simple position: it technically exists on the docket but has nowhere meaningful to go.
• Jones cannot realistically proceed to trial against unidentified defendants who have never actually been named or appeared in the case.
• Wayfarer contacted Stephanie Jones’ attorneys and asked them to voluntarily drop the claim.
• According to the defendants’ motion, Jones’ attorneys indicated they would do so, but the dismissal never happened.

📑 Wayfarer Gives Judge Liman Multiple Ways to Dismiss It (2:05–2:38)

• The motion provides Judge Liman with several different procedural mechanisms he could use to dismiss the remaining claim.
• Although motions to dismiss are more commonly seen earlier in litigation, NAG notes that they can arise later depending on the circumstances.
• NAG's takeaway from the filing is that the defendants are essentially saying the precise procedural route does not matter—the John Doe claim simply needs to go.

🤔 Why Is Stephanie Jones Still Holding Onto It? (2:38–3:13)

• NAG would not be surprised if Stephanie Jones simply withdraws the claim in response to the motion rather than fighting over it.
• Even if Jones believes she has identified someone responsible for the websites, Judge Liman has already ruled that she cannot amend the complaint to name that person at this stage.
• NAG briefly speculates that there could be settlement discussions happening behind the scenes and that Jones’ side might view the unresolved claim as some form of leverage, but NAG emphasizes that this is only a possibility.

⚖️🔓 Little Girl Attorney - Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel Update: Judge Liman Orders Documents Unsealed as Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss Jones’ Lingering John Doe Defamation Claim

🥱😴😑🫩NotActuallyGolden - Stephanie Jones’ “Dead” Defamation Claim: Wayfarer Asks Judge Liman to Finally Dismiss the John Doe Claim After Jones Failed to Drop It

📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

🔓 Judge Liman Orders More Jones v. Abel Documents Unsealed (0:00–1:18)

• There are two new developments on the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel docket, beginning with the dispute over documents currently under seal.
• The court previously asked the parties to explain which materials, if any, still needed to remain sealed.
• Stephanie Jones told the court she did not object to the documents being unsealed.
• The Wayfarer parties took a narrower position, arguing that certain materials contain personally identifying information and should remain sealed consistent with Judge Liman’s previous rulings in Lively v. Wayfarer.
• Judge Liman has now ruled that materials he previously determined should remain sealed will continue to be protected, while everything else should be unsealed.
• LGA says it is difficult to know how significant this will be until the documents actually become public, although there could still be material that has not previously been seen.

⚖️ Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss the Remaining John Doe Defamation Claim (1:18–2:17)

• LGA says the more interesting development is a new motion to dismiss filed by the Wayfarer parties.
• The motion targets the unidentified John Doe defendants and the remaining defamation claim against them.
• When Stephanie Jones originally filed her lawsuit approximately 19 months ago, she alleged unidentified individuals were responsible for creating and disseminating websites including Stephanie Jones Leaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Because Jones said she did not yet know who was responsible, she initially brought the defamation claim against unnamed John Doe defendants with the expectation that their identities could later be discovered.

🚫 Jones Previously Tried to Substitute Melissa Nathan—but the Court Said No (2:09–2:39)

• Stephanie Jones subsequently attempted to identify Melissa Nathan as one of the John Doe defendants.
• Judge Liman refused to permit the amendment.
• The court found Jones had unduly delayed, failed to demonstrate good cause and had not been sufficiently diligent in determining the defendants’ identities.
• However, that ruling did not technically eliminate the original defamation claim against the unidentified John Does, leaving the claim sitting on the docket.

🧩 Wayfarer Says the John Doe Claim Has Nowhere Left to Go (2:39–3:21)

• LGA explains that because nobody formally moved to dismiss the remaining John Doe claim, it technically continued to exist despite the court preventing Jones from substituting Melissa Nathan.
• The Wayfarer parties argue that Jones has not identified another defendant, pursued the necessary discovery, or otherwise developed the claim.
• That creates a procedural loose end: even if there is effectively nobody for Jones to pursue at trial, the claim remains part of the case until it is formally dismissed.
• The Wayfarer parties therefore asked Jones to voluntarily dismiss it.

🤔 Jones Allegedly Agreed to Dismiss It—but Didn't (3:21–4:10)

• According to the Wayfarer parties’ filing, they initially asked for the claim to be dismissed in April.
• Jones apparently did not agree until late June, when the Wayfarer parties say she finally indicated she would dismiss it.
• However, according to their motion, Jones never actually followed through with the dismissal.
• LGA says she currently cannot see a clear reason Judge Liman would deny Wayfarer's request: Jones allegedly has not prosecuted the claim, pursued discovery identifying the John Does, and had already agreed to dismiss it.
• If Stephanie Jones files an opposition, LGA says that may finally explain why the claim has remained on the docket despite her apparent agreement to let it go.

⚖️ Jones v. Abel Is Back: Trial Timeline & Summary Judgment Ahead (0:00–1:25)

• NAG gives a refresher on Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel, which has been relatively quiet while the parties finish expert discovery.
• Based on recent court filings, the parties are working toward summary judgment motions in October 2026, which NAG says could reveal substantially more evidence.
• The case is currently set for trial in February 2027, although NAG stresses that a trial date does not guarantee the case will actually reach trial.
• She explains that some claims have previously been dismissed or changed, so her goal is to explain what she believes remains live in the litigation.

🧩 How Jones v. Abel Connects to Lively v. Wayfarer (1:28–2:20)

• Stephanie Jones originally filed the lawsuit in New York state court before it was removed to the Southern District of New York.
• Although it was never consolidated with Lively v. Wayfarer, the two cases proceeded alongside each other and had overlapping discovery periods.
• Attorneys from the Jones case therefore participated in depositions occurring during the Lively litigation.
• With Lively v. Wayfarer now over, Jones v. Abel is moving independently toward its own dispositive-motion stage.

💔 Stephanie Jones’ Core Claim Against Jennifer Abel: The Employment Agreement (2:20–2:59)

• NAG characterizes Stephanie Jones’ case against Jennifer Abel as essentially a “you cheated on me” case.
• According to Jones’ allegations, Abel's employment agreement restricted her from competing with Jones Works, establishing a competing firm, soliciting clients or personnel, and improperly sharing confidential information.
• Jones alleges Abel violated those obligations while preparing to leave Jones Works.
• NAG describes the breach of employment agreement claim as the umbrella under which much of Jones’ case operates.

🏚️ Tortious Interference: Melissa Nathan, Wayfarer & Justin Baldoni (2:59–3:25)

• Jones also accuses Melissa Nathan, Wayfarer, and Justin Baldoni of helping or encouraging Jennifer Abel to breach her employment obligations.
• NAG describes them as the alleged “homewreckers” in her relationship analogy.
• Legally, Jones frames this as tortious interference with her contractual relationship with Abel.

📑 Jones Works v. Wayfarer: The Client Agreement (3:25–4:25)

• Stephanie Jones separately alleges that Wayfarer breached its client agreement with Jones Works.
• According to Jones, the agreement required Wayfarer to continue making certain payments, provide written notice before terminating the relationship, and comply with restrictions concerning moving to a competitor.
• Jones alleges Wayfarer failed to satisfy those obligations when it ended its relationship with Jones Works.
• She further alleges Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan helped induce Wayfarer to breach that agreement.

👩🏻‍💼 Faithless Servant & Fiduciary-Duty Claims Against Jennifer Abel (4:25–4:46)

• Jones also brings faithless servant and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Abel.
• NAG explains these broadly as allegations that while Abel was employed by Jones Works and owed duties to her employer, Abel was instead acting for herself or others.
• Whether those theories ultimately survive through summary judgment remains to be seen.

🌐 “Stephanie Jones Leaks,” “Stephanie Jones Lies” & Defamation (4:46–5:33)

• Another part of Jones’ case concerns websites including “Stephanie Jones Leaks,” “Stephanie Jones Lies,” and “Who’s Afraid of Stephanie Jones.”
• Jones alleges Jennifer Abel and unidentified John Does were responsible for the websites.
• NAG notes that Jones previously attempted to substitute Melissa Nathan for one of those unidentified defendants, but the judge found that attempt came too late.
• NAG says NAG has not yet seen evidence establishing Abel's responsibility for the websites and expects this issue could become clearer at summary judgment.

📱 Jennifer Abel’s Counterclaims: Her Phone & Personal Number (5:33–7:00)

• Jennifer Abel has brought three counterclaims against Stephanie Jones arising from what happened to her phone, personal data, and personal phone number.
• NAG emphasizes that the court previously declined to dismiss these claims based simply on the argument that information contained on an employer-provided phone automatically belonged to the employer.
• One theory involves an alleged violation of the California Penal Code concerning unauthorized access to business and personal information.
• Abel also brings a conversion claim, alleging her personal phone number was transferred onto the Jones Works device and then retained after her departure.
• Her promissory fraud claim concerns alleged representations that her phone and/or number would be returned or transferred back to her, which she says did not happen.

💥 Wayfarer’s Counterclaim & the Vanzan Evidence (7:02–7:55)

• Wayfarer has its own counterclaim against Stephanie Jones for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
• According to NAG, the breach-of-contract claim concerning confidentiality did not survive, but this related theory remains live.
• Wayfarer alleges that its relationship with Jones Works inherently required Jones to act in good faith toward her client.
• The allegation centers on Jones allegedly providing Leslie Sloane and Blake Lively with information obtained from Jennifer Abel’s phone, including material connected to Vanzan.
• Wayfarer argues that Jones' alleged disclosure of that information violated the implied covenant governing their contractual relationship.

🗣️ Wayfarer’s Defamation Counterclaim Against Stephanie Jones (7:55–8:31)

• Wayfarer also has a defamation counterclaim against Stephanie Jones and Jones Works.
• Wayfarer alleges Jones told Leslie Sloane and Blake Lively that she knew there was a smear campaign and possessed evidence proving it.
• Wayfarer contends those representations were defamatory because Jones allegedly had access to information showing that although certain tactics may have been discussed, they were not actually carried out.
• This puts what Jones allegedly knew—and what the underlying communications actually showed at the center of another surviving dispute.

🔥 October Could Bring a Major Evidence Dump (8:31–9:01)

• NAG believes the counterclaims particularly the claim involving Vanzan and Jennifer Abel’s phone data will attract significant attention as the litigation moves forward.
• She expects multiple parties could seek summary judgment on multiple claims.
• For observers, that could be particularly significant because the motions and oppositions may put considerably more evidence into the public court record.
• With October summary judgment briefing and a February 2027 trial date currently on the calendar, NAG says Jones v. Abel is officially becoming a case worth watching closely again.

👀Watchlist:

⚖️♟️🚨📰 Little Girl Attorney - New It Ends With Us Spin-Off Lawsuit: James Vituscka Sues the Daily Mail, Alleging He Was Pressured Over His Declaration & Became a “Pawn” in the Lively-Wayfarer Legal War

📍James Vituscka is suing the Daily Mail…Claims he signed his Declaration in Lively v Wayfarer case due to pressure and coercion u/same-difference-ave

📰 Explains Why Not Covering James Vituscka’s Lawsuit (0:00–0:18)

• NAG says she is fully aware of the new lawsuit filed by James Vituscka, which connects back to the Lively, Leslie Sloane, and Wayfarer litigation.
• She has read the lawsuit but has decided not to do a full breakdown because other creators are already covering it and, in her view, will cover it well.

🤨 NAG Questions James Vituscka’s Reliability (0:18–0:41)

• NAG says she personally views Vituscka as an “unreliable narrator.”
• She points to the multiple declarations/affidavits he filed during the litigation that, according to her, contained differing accounts.
• Also, Vituscka has directly messaged NAG multiple times throughout the case.
• Based on those private interactions, NAG says she has seen him contradict himself, which further affects how she evaluates his account.

⚖️ His Daily Mail Case Could Still Have Merit (0:41–0:58)

• NAG makes an important distinction: her concerns about Vituscka’s credibility do not necessarily mean he has no legitimate case against the Daily Mail.
• She acknowledges that he “may very well have a case” against the publication.
• Her hesitation is instead about personally diving into the question of whether someone she believes gave contradictory sworn declarations should now be characterized as a whistleblower.

🚫 Why NAG Is Choosing Not to Cover It (0:58–1:12)

• Despite viewers repeatedly asking for her thoughts on the Vituscka lawsuit, NAG has decided this is one story she simply does not want to get into.

⚖️😉🍵 NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Is Heating Up: Summary Judgment in October Could Reveal “All the Tea,” Sealed Vanzan Evidence May Come Out & Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting

🔓⚖️ Little Girl Attorney - Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming: Judge Liman Questions Continued Sealing in Jones v. Abel

🔓 Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming in Jones v. Abel [0:00–0:30]

• LGA says anyone who has been following the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation should now pay close attention to the separate Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel case.
• Another potentially significant round of document unsealing appears to be approaching.
• The case is also before Judge Liman, who recently issued an order addressing the parties’ requests to keep various documents on the docket sealed.
• LGA is particularly interested because the Jones v. Abel litigation overlaps substantially with issues and evidence that surfaced in Lively v. Wayfarer.

⚖️ Judge Liman Questions Whether Continued Sealing Is Still Justified [0:30–1:06]

• Judge Liman’s preliminary review found that many of the documents the parties want to keep sealed have already been unsealed in the Lively v. Wayfarer Studios litigation.
• The judge also noted that a significant amount of time has passed since the original sealing decisions.
• Because circumstances have changed, the business and privacy interests that originally justified keeping certain materials confidential may no longer carry the same weight.
• LGA highlights the practical problem: if particular documents or information are already publicly available through the related Lively v. Wayfarer case, there may be little justification for continuing to conceal the same material in Jones v. Abel.

📅 Parties Have Until August 17 to Defend the Sealing [1:06–1:23]

• Judge Liman has directed the parties to submit a letter by August 17 explaining why any particular documents should remain sealed.
• According to LGA, if the parties fail to provide sufficient justification, the court has indicated that the materials will be unsealed.
• This effectively puts the burden back on the parties to identify what genuinely still requires confidentiality rather than simply allowing the existing sealing orders to continue indefinitely.

👀 Could Previously Unseen Jones v. Abel Documents Become Public? [1:23–1:36]

• LGA acknowledges that some of the documents involved may simply be duplicate material the public has already seen through Lively v. Wayfarer.
• However, she believes there could also be documents in Jones v. Abel that have never previously been made public.
• Alongside with familiar evidence, the public could potentially receive new material specific to the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel dispute.
• LGA says she is now digging back into Jones v. Abel and will be following what happens as the August 17 deadline approaches.

📍Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ptL8RMoS4&t=3572s

⚖️😉🍵 NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Is Heating Up: Summary Judgment in October Could Reveal “All the Tea,” Sealed Vanzan Evidence May Come Out & Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting

🔓⚖️ Little Girl Attorney - Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming: Judge Liman Questions Continued Sealing in Jones v. Abel

⚖️ Why the Lively–Baldoni Litigation Was So Unusual [0:00–1:17]

• NAG says she is compiling a list of the many procedural aspects that made the Lively–Baldoni litigation unusual, and one major example was the absence of motions to dismiss from the Wayfarer parties.
• She explains that when defendants believe they have viable legal grounds for dismissal, filing a motion to dismiss is generally a standard early step and cheaper than a motion for summary judgment after discovery.
• The Wayfarer parties clearly had legal arguments available because similar arguments later appeared in their summary judgment motions.
• Even obtaining partial dismissal can be valuable because it narrows the claims before expensive discovery proceeds.
• A motion to dismiss can also delay discovery while the court considers whether some or all claims should survive.
• NAG therefore finds it significant that the Wayfarer parties chose not to pursue that route and instead proceeded directly into discovery.
• In her view, that decision supports what the Wayfarer parties have consistently claimed: they wanted the underlying facts and evidence to come out publicly rather than trying to dispose of the case before discovery.

👀 Jones v. Abel Is About to Become Important Again [1:17–2:59]

• NAG shifts to Jones v. Abel, saying she has had charts and explanations prepared for months but was waiting until the case became active again before releasing them.
• That moment has now arrived because significant deadlines and developments are approaching.
• Jones v. Abel was brought by Stephanie Jones, a longtime celebrity publicist, against her former employee Jennifer Abel, her former client Wayfarer, and Melissa Nathan, who later worked with Wayfarer after the departure from Jonesworks.
• NAG finds the case particularly interesting because it involves less commonly discussed employment and business issues, including when employees can leave and take clients, what employers can do with company phones, and what happens to information stored on those devices.
• Jennifer Abel’s phone is expected to be an especially significant issue.
• NAG also reminds viewers that Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan and the Wayfarer parties have brought counterclaims against Stephanie Jones.
• As NAG has repeatedly described it, Stephanie Jones has effectively become the “common enemy” because multiple parties have claims or grievances against her.

📅 October Summary Judgment Could Bring “All the Tea” [3:07–3:59]

• NAG says the parties have agreed that summary judgment motions will be due in October, making the next couple of months potentially very important.
• She explains that summary judgment is particularly valuable for people following a case publicly because it often brings large amounts of evidence onto the public docket.
• A party seeking summary judgment argues that there are no genuine disputes of material fact requiring a jury to resolve.
• Consequently, the moving party presents the evidence supporting its position, while the opposing side typically responds with evidence showing why factual disputes remain.
• If Jones v. Abel reaches the October summary judgment deadline without settling, NAG expects the filings to reveal considerably more of the evidence behind the competing allegations.

📂 Jones v. Abel Can Draw From a Huge Pool of Discovery [3:59–5:14]

• Discovery in Jones v. Abel occurred concurrently with discovery in the Lively–Baldoni litigation, meaning the parties were developing evidence in both matters at roughly the same time.
• NAG says this is important because evidence obtained through civil discovery can potentially be used across related civil litigation.
• The Jones v. Abel parties therefore have access not only to documents, depositions, affidavits and other discovery produced specifically in their case, but potentially relevant material developed through the Lively–Baldoni litigation as well.
• That creates what NAG describes as a very large universe of information from which the parties can construct their summary judgment arguments.
• She plans to release another video reviewing the claims that remain active in Jones v. Abel so viewers are prepared for the upcoming filings.

🔓 Judge Signals That Sealed Jones v. Abel Material May Be Coming Out [5:14–6:36]

• Another development is: the judge recently indicated that numerous materials remain under seal and effectively asked the parties to explain why they should stay sealed.
• She interprets this as a sign that previously unavailable evidence could begin entering the public record.
• NAG believes some evidence sealed in Jones v. Abel never became public during the Lively–Baldoni litigation.
• She expects some of that material could concern the Stephanie Jones leaks and Stephanie Jones lies websites.
• She also believes some material could relate to Vanzan, an issue she says was comparatively underplayed in the Lively–Baldoni litigation.
• NAG says Vanzan is much more central to Jones v. Abel because there is an actual legal claim alleging that Stephanie Jones improperly provided information to Blake Lively.
• Vanzan is coming at us.

💰 Still Waiting for Judge Liman’s Blake Lively Fee Decision [6:52–7:09]

• NAG briefly returns to the main litigation, noting that everyone is still waiting for Judge Liman’s ruling on Blake Lively’s attorney’s fee request.
• The unresolved question is how much of Lively’s request will ultimately be awarded—whether somewhere around $150,000, the full $8 million request, or something in between.

🤔 Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting—and NAG Finds That Interesting [7:09–8:25]

• NAG then turns to the latest developments in Jed Wallace’s Texas litigation against Blake Lively.
• Wallace sued over allegations contained in Lively’s CRD complaint that was provided to the New York Times, arguing that his reputation was damaged by being associated with allegations involving sexual harassment and retaliation.
• NAG notes that when Lively subsequently filed her federal lawsuit, Wallace was not named as a defendant.
• What particularly interests NAG is that Wallace continues pursuing the litigation despite his historically low public profile.
• She recalls how difficult it initially was for people even to find a photograph of him online and characterizes his professional work as intentionally operating away from public attention.
• Yet Wallace appealed the Texas personal-jurisdiction ruling and continues participating in the dispute surrounding Lively’s §47.1 fee request.
• NAG says he could have abandoned the matter and returned to relative anonymity, but instead he has continued fighting, which leaves her curious about his motivation.

👩‍⚖️ Magistrate Judge Gets the §47.1 and Deposition Fight [8:25–9:32]

• NAG says the remaining trial-court disputes appear to have been referred to a magistrate judge.
• Those issues include Blake Lively’s §47.1 motion and Wallace’s request to depose her in connection with that motion.
• She explains that federal district judges frequently refer issues to magistrate judges, who can handle the dispute and make recommendations that the district judge may subsequently adopt.
• What NAG finds most intriguing: Jed Wallace keeps engaging.
• Wallace did not have to appeal after the court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Lively, yet he chose to continue.
• Although Lively’s §47.1 fee request now requires him to defend himself, NAG remains fascinated that Wallace continues actively pursuing a dispute when his apparent preference at the beginning was to return to Texas and disappear from public attention.

📍James Vituscka is suing the Daily Mail…Claims he signed his Declaration in Lively v Wayfarer case due to pressure and coercion u/same-difference-ave

📰 Another It Ends With Us Lawsuit Emerges [0:00–1:11]

• LGA says a new spin-off lawsuit connected to the It Ends With Us litigation has emerged, this time involving Daily Mail reporter James Vituscka.
• Vituscka became part of the broader dispute because of his reporting efforts as the controversy unfolded in August 2024.
• He was referenced in the complaint filed by the Wayfarer parties against Leslie Sloane, Blake Lively and others, and later appeared through competing declarations used in connection with Sloane’s motions.
• LGA revisits a text Vituscka sent Melissa Nathan shortly after the New York Times article was published. In it, he questioned why Sloane had previously described the cast as hating Justin Baldoni without mentioning Lively’s later allegations.
• That communication ultimately became part of the Wayfarer parties’ complaint.

📑 Leslie Sloane’s Subpoenas & Vituscka’s First Declaration [1:11–2:14]

• In April 2025, Leslie Sloane’s counsel subpoenaed Vituscka for documents and sought his deposition.
• According to LGA, the Daily Mail then became involved, and Vituscka provided a declaration that Sloane subsequently relied upon in support of her sanctions arguments.
• In that declaration, Vituscka said his use of the word “assault” had been a mistake, that his text had been presented without proper context, and that he regretted the messages becoming public.
• Vituscka later submitted another declaration in August, which LGA previously characterized as appearing self-serving.
• LGA recalls predicting at the time that the situation looked like it could eventually lead to litigation between Vituscka and the Daily Mail. She says that prediction has now materialized.

⚠️ Vituscka Alleges the Daily Mail Pressured Him to Sign a Declaration [2:14–3:31]

• According to Vituscka’s allegations, the arrival of the subpoenas created significant internal pressure at the Daily Mail.
• Vituscka alleges the company attempted to control the situation and appeased Leslie Sloane rather than simply allowing him to sit for a deposition.
• He claims he was pressured into signing a declaration drafted for him that did not completely reflect his own position.
• One of his concerns allegedly involved the declaration repeatedly stating that he “regretted” what had occurred.
• He also objected to language stating that he had not authorized Bryan Freedman to use his text messages in the complaint, because he allegedly did not believe that accurately represented what happened.
• Vituscka claims Daily Mail management and in-house counsel placed substantial pressure on him to sign, leaving him feeling that refusing would amount to letting his employer down.
• He further alleges he was discouraged from obtaining independent legal representation even after he became concerned that his interests and the Daily Mail’s interests were diverging.

⚖️ Wayfarer Subpoena, Independent Counsel & Whistleblower Warning [3:31–4:24]

• The situation allegedly escalated when another subpoena arrived, this time from the Wayfarer parties.
• Vituscka then retained independent counsel, who sent the Daily Mail a claim letter asserting that Vituscka qualified as a whistleblower under New York law.
• The letter allegedly warned the company that taking adverse employment action against him could constitute unlawful retaliation.
• Vituscka was nevertheless subsequently terminated.
• According to his allegations, the Daily Mail told him that he had repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of integrity, making it impossible for the publication to continue relying upon him as a reporter.

🗑️ Vituscka Claims Retaliation Continued After His Termination [4:24–5:15]

• Vituscka alleges the retaliation did not stop when his employment ended.
• The April 2026 joint pretrial order in the broader litigation, where Blake Lively reportedly identified Vituscka as a potential trial witness.
• According to Vituscka, four days later the Daily Mail removed him from his online portfolio.
• He alleges this affected approximately 500 articles and exclusives, along with associated links and professional attribution accumulated during more than three years of work.
• Vituscka characterizes this as an effort to erase his professional record after he had become entangled in the litigation.

🚨 Vituscka’s Whistleblower Retaliation Theory [5:15–5:53]

• Vituscka connects his termination and the removal of his professional credits to his assertion of whistleblower protections.
• His theory, as LGA explains it, is that he was being pressured to participate in conduct he considered improper—including signing a federal-court declaration with which he did not completely agree.
• He also claims he was discouraged from obtaining independent counsel despite believing his personal interests were no longer aligned with his employer’s.
• He alleges that after raising those concerns and asserting legal protections, the Daily Mail retaliated by terminating him.

🧑‍⚖️ Additional Discrimination & Retaliation Allegations [5:53–7:25]

• Vituscka’s lawsuit also contains allegations extending beyond the It Ends With Us subpoenas.
• He alleges that an editor, identified as Mr. Ellis, made a sexual advance toward him at a Christmas party.
• Vituscka claims the editor’s treatment of him changed after he rejected or declined that advance, forming part of his retaliation allegations.
• He additionally alleges discrimination connected to an actual or perceived disability.
• During the stress surrounding the subpoenas, Vituscka says he consulted his therapist and took approximately one week away from work for his mental health.
• LGA notes that Vituscka characterizes this as a leave of absence, while predicting that the Daily Mail may dispute that characterization.
• Vituscka alleges this absence may also have contributed to his eventual termination.
• His complaint therefore brings multiple claims under New York law, including discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation.

♟️ LGA Views Vituscka as a “Pawn” Caught in a Much Bigger Fight [7:25–8:22]

• LGA says her impression remains similar to what she thought when Vituscka’s declarations first emerged: his primary concern appears to be protecting himself rather than advancing either Blake Lively’s or Wayfarer’s position.
• She describes him as a Daily Mail reporter who had worked to establish relationships with powerful and high-profile sources before becoming caught in litigation involving much larger players.
• According to his allegations, his words were misconstrued and he was pressured to sign documents he did not fully support.
• LGA therefore views Vituscka less as someone joining one “side” of the larger dispute and more as a potential casualty or pawn in a much bigger battle who is now attempting to reclaim his independence, professional reputation and legal rights.

🔍 Discovery Could Reveal What Was Really Happening Inside the Daily Mail [8:22–9:35]

• LGA characterizes the case itself as a relatively conventional employment lawsuit, meaning discovery could become the most revealing stage.
• Evidence could show whether the Daily Mail had documented, legitimate reasons for terminating Vituscka unrelated to the litigation—such as performance problems, previous reprimands or internal concerns about his reporting.
• Alternatively, discovery could reveal whether his employment problems escalated only after he became entangled in subpoenas from Leslie Sloane and the Wayfarer parties.
• LGA says this makes the lawsuit particularly interesting because discovery could expose additional information about what was happening behind the scenes both during the original movie controversy and throughout the subsequent litigation.
• Vituscka also allegedly suggests that the Daily Mail was engaged in some form of negotiation with Leslie Sloane—something LGA says she had already suspected when analyzing his earlier declaration.

⚖️ New York Times Fee Award Does NOT Prove a Smear Campaign [0:00–0:29]

• LGA says she came across an Instagram post claiming that the New York Times winning its uncontested anti-SLAPP fee motion somehow proved Blake Lively’s allegations of a smear campaign.
• She strongly disagrees with that interpretation and says she wants to distinguish what the courts actually decided from arguments being made online.
• LGA says she attempted to engage directly with the creator about the issue but was subsequently blocked.

📰 Why the New York Times Was Dismissed [0:29–1:21]

• LGA explains that the New York Times prevailed on its motion to dismiss because the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by applicable legal privileges.
• This occurred very early in the litigation, before discovery, meaning the New York Times was effectively removed from the case before the broader factual record was developed.
• As a result, the New York Times did not participate in the subsequent discovery process or have to defend the underlying factual allegations through trial.
• LGA emphasizes that the dismissal concerned whether the publication could be held legally liable for the statements—not a judicial finding establishing the truth of every statement contained in the article.

🔍 No Court Finding That the NYT Article Was Factually True [1:21–1:55]

• LGA stresses what she sees as the critical distinction: the court did not make a factual determination that everything reported in the New York Times article was true.
• The allegedly defamatory statements were protected from liability, but LGA says that should not be confused with a judicial finding that the underlying allegations themselves were proven.
• She argues that the broader factual questions were never adjudicated through a trial.

⚖️ Smear-Campaign Allegations "Were Going To Be Decided" at Trial [1:38–2:16]

• LGA says the alleged smear campaign would have been litigated through Lively’s retaliation claim.
• However, Lively ultimately settled and walked away from the remaining litigation rather than taking those allegations before a jury.
• Therefore, there is no final court determination establishing whether a smear campaign actually occurred.
• The publicly available documents and evidence remain available for people to examine, but LGA says members of the public must draw their own conclusions rather than presenting those conclusions as judicial findings.

🗞️ The Public Can Still Criticize the New York Times’ Reporting [2:16–2:45]

• Because there was no factual trial determining the truth of the smear-campaign allegations, LGA says people remain free to believe that the New York Times cherry-picked evidence in its reporting.
• Likewise, people can form their own opinions about whether the article met appropriate standards of investigative journalism, credibility, integrity, or completeness.
• The central point is that those are opinions and interpretations of the evidence, not conclusions that were definitively resolved by the court.
• LGA reiterates that there has been no judicial determination declaring everything contained in the New York Times article to be factually true.

🚫 LGA Says She Challenged the Interpretation—and Was Blocked [2:45–2:56]

• LGA says she encouraged the Instagram creator to make clear that the post represented an argument or interpretation, rather than simply reporting what the legal filings established.
• According to LGA, the creator responded by blocking her.
• LGA therefore uses her own platform to clarify what she believes the legal record actually establishes: the New York Times prevailed on privilege grounds and obtained fees, but that outcome did not judicially prove Lively’s smear-campaign allegations or establish the truth of the entire article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🌊 Litigation Strategy (4:18–4:54)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🧐🧠🧨 Little Girl Attorney - The Court Still Reduced the Fees and Costs When Wayfarer Didn’t Contest The New York Times’ $181K Fee Request: What Could That Mean for Blake Lively’s $8M Ask? Could the Same Logic Significantly Reduce Her Request?

📄👨🏼‍⚖️💸 Notactuallygolden - Reality Check: New York Times Gets $171K in Fees; What This Could Mean for Blake Lively’s $8M Request

📍NY Times v Wayfarer: NYT Motion for Summary Judgement on Attorneys' Fees & Cost has been granted (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ The NYT Gets Its Attorney’s Fees—But This Isn’t the Award Everyone Is Waiting For (0:00–1:02)

• NAG explains that an attorney’s-fee award has arrived, but not Blake Lively’s disputed $8 million fee request.
• This order concerns The New York Times’ separate New York state-court proceeding seeking reimbursement for fees incurred defending the defamation claims against it in the federal Lively v. Wayfarer litigation.
• NAG describes the underlying concept as res judicata: because the federal court had already dismissed the claims against The New York Times, the state court did not need to relitigate that underlying result.
• According to NAG, The New York Times essentially asked the state court to recognise what had already been decided, determine that the applicable New York statute entitled it to attorney’s fees, and calculate the appropriate amount.
• The New York Times therefore sought summary judgment without discovery, arguing that the substantive dismissal had already occurred and the remaining dispute concerned entitlement to and calculation of fees.

🧊 Wayfarer Asked to Put the NYT Case “On Ice” (1:02–2:14)

• Wayfarer initially responded by asking the state court to stay the proceeding while the broader Lively v. Wayfarer federal litigation continued.
• NAG explains that Wayfarer believed developments in the federal litigation could affect the issues before the state court, so it wanted the NYT proceeding temporarily paused.
• That request was still pending when the main federal case settled.
• Once the settlement occurred, NAG says the reasons supporting Wayfarer’s requested stay effectively disappeared.
• She also says Wayfarer gave up its ability to appeal the dismissal of The New York Times as part of the settlement, leaving the state proceeding largely focused on two questions: Was The New York Times entitled to fees under New York’s pro-speech law, and if so, how much?
• The court answered the first question in The New York Times’ favour.

📑 NAG: Wayfarer Never Came Back and Challenged NYT’s Entitlement (2:14–3:15)

• NAG highlights language from the order stating that Wayfarer had not attempted to dispute the conclusion that The New York Times was entitled to fees.
• Although Wayfarer previously sought a stay, it did not return after the federal settlement and file substantive opposition to The New York Times’ summary judgment motion.
• NAG stresses that Wayfarer knew it had the opportunity to oppose the motion but chose not to do so.
• Therefore, in her reading, Wayfarer did not preserve a dispute over The New York Times’ statutory entitlement to attorney’s fees.

💰 NYT Requested $181,622.70, and Wayfarer Didn’t Challenge the Amount (3:15–4:13)

• The New York Times sought $181,622.70 for legal work associated with obtaining dismissal and related proceedings.
• NAG notes that Wayfarer also did not contest that requested amount.
• She interprets that decision as Wayfarer effectively recognising that the request was within a reasonable range and deciding there was little value in spending additional money fighting it.
• NAG describes this as an example of knowing when not to litigate: sometimes continuing to fight an issue costs more than simply allowing the court to resolve it.
• The court separately assessed the rates and hours and found them generally consistent with the complexity, high-profile nature of the case and New York legal rates.

🧾 “Fees on Fees” and the Final $171,616.20 Award (4:13–4:46)

• “fees on fees”—whether a party entitled to attorney’s fees can also recover the additional legal expense incurred in preparing and pursuing the fee application itself.
• NAG explains that this can create a secondary fee question because lawyers necessarily perform more work to obtain the fees they have already been awarded.
• Based on the language of the anti-SLAPP statute, the court concluded that qualifying fee-application work could also be recovered
• The resulting award was $171,616.20, lower than the approximately $181,622.70 originally requested.

📈 NAG Explains Why Interest Now Matters (4:46–7:19)

• NAG uses the order to explain the distinction between prejudgment and post-judgment interest.
• Once a court enters a monetary judgment, the obligation effectively becomes a debt, raising the question of whether interest accrues while the judgment remains unpaid.
• She explains that prejudgment interest can sometimes compensate a successful party for the period between when money allegedly became owed and when judgment was finally entered.
• Post-judgment interest concerns what happens after the court formally establishes the amount owed.
• According to NAG’s reading of this order, the relevant interest clock begins with the current judgment: Wayfarer owes The New York Times $171,616.20, with statutory interest accruing from the date of the order until payment.
• Interest can become significant when large judgments remain unpaid for extended periods.

🚨 The $171K NYT Award Could Be Bad for Lively’s $8M Request (7:19–8:23)

• NAG agrees with viewers arguing that this order could be unhelpful to Blake Lively’s $8 million fee application.
• She is surprised the decision had not already been brought to Judge Liman’s attention through a request for judicial notice.
• The New York Times received approximately $171,000 after obtaining dismissal from the same broader defamation litigation, while Lively is seeking roughly $8 million.
• NAG acknowledges that Lively’s dismissal involved more complicated legal arguments. She says The New York Times relied more directly on fair-report privilege, whereas Lively’s defense required arguments involving fair-report privilege, litigation privilege and the relationship between them.
• For that reason, NAG believes Lively could reasonably have incurred somewhat more than The New York Times and suggests around $200,000 as a possible benchmark.
• But she believes the new order gives Judge Liman another judicial determination of what constituted reasonable fees arising from closely related litigation, potentially making an award dramatically above that figure harder to justify.

🚫 NAG Rejects the Rumour That Wayfarer Will Appeal (8:23–9:23)

• NAG says she does not believe rumours that Wayfarer is preparing to appeal this fee decision.
• She acknowledges there may be a question about whether the settlement agreement technically prevents such an appeal, and she does not believe the right was necessarily expressly waived.
• But practically, an appeal could cost as much as or more than simply paying the approximately $171,000 judgment.
• More importantly, NAG believes Wayfarer has a preservation problem because it chose not to challenge the issues before the trial court.
• She explains that appellate courts generally review arguments preserved in the lower-court record; parties ordinarily cannot decline to raise an objection before the trial judge and then introduce that objection for the first time on appeal.
• Because Wayfarer did not oppose the entitlement to fees or challenge the amount before the decision, an appeal would be extremely difficult even if Wayfarer technically retained a right to pursue one.

🍽️ The Trio Pick Their Biggest Winners & Losers of the Lively v. Wayfarer Litigation (0:00–0:22)

• During their final dinner together, LGA, Britt and NAG answered a question viewers had been asking for: who each of them considers the biggest winner and biggest loser of the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation.

⚖️ LGA: The Lawyers Were the Biggest Winners (0:22–1:02)

• LGA chooses the lawyers on both sides as the biggest winners, focusing on the extraordinary amount of legal work the litigation generated.
• She says it is rare for lawyers to seemingly have such broad latitude to deploy resources and pursue litigation strategy without the tight constraints that often exist in ordinary cases.
• Drawing on her own litigation experience, LGA says lawyers would dream of being handed a case where the instruction effectively amounts to doing whatever is necessary to prosecute or defend it.
• Although the public cannot know what work the legal teams decided not to undertake, LGA says the record makes clear that they did an enormous amount.
• From that perspective, regardless of which side prevailed on particular issues, the lawyers benefited from the sheer scale and intensity of the litigation.

📉 LGA: Blake Lively Was the Biggest Loser (1:02–1:31)

• LGA names Blake Lively as the biggest loser at this stage, primarily because of what she sees as lasting reputational damage.
• She believes public perception of Lively has fundamentally changed as a result of both how the case was litigated and how it ultimately ended.
• In LGA's view, even after the litigation itself fades from the headlines, people may never look at Blake Lively in quite the same way again.
• For that reason, she considers the reputational consequences more significant than simply looking at who won or lost individual motions.

🎬 Britt: Wayfarer Studios Came Out With a Bigger Platform (1:31–1:57)

• Britt picks Wayfarer Studios as the biggest winner because the litigation placed an enormous spotlight on a studio that many members of the public may previously have known little about.
• She argues that Wayfarer now has both a platform and level of public awareness it did not possess before the dispute.
• Britt credits the controversy with introducing audiences to the studio and its work, saying she likes the projects and art Wayfarer is creating.
• With substantially more eyes now watching the studio, she is interested in seeing how Wayfarer uses that increased attention and where it goes next.

📱 Britt: Stephanie Jones Could Be the Biggest Loser—But Her Case Isn't Over (1:57–2:41)

• Britt selects Stephanie Jones as her biggest loser, although she emphasises that this assessment remains somewhat unresolved because the related litigation is continuing.
• In Britt's opinion, Stephanie Jones suffered damage to her professional credibility because of the circumstances surrounding her response to what Britt characterises as a friendly subpoena.
• Britt believes the handling of that situation potentially disadvantaged Jones in relation to her clients, employees and broader standing within the industry.
• But Britt reserves judgment on what the litigation may eventually establish.

🎭 NAG: Ryan Reynolds Had the Most to Lose (2:41–3:03)

• NAG chooses Ryan Reynolds as the biggest loser, referring to him indirectly as "the actor whose movies are not funny."
• Her reasoning is that Reynolds entered the controversy with a particularly valuable public image and therefore had more reputational capital at risk.
• While she agrees that Lively suffered consequences, NAG believes Reynolds had a larger established reputation and career image capable of taking a hit.
• In her view, that reputation has already been affected, making him the person who ultimately had the most to lose from the entire situation.

👀 NAG: The Public Won by Seeing How Celebrity PR Really Works (3:03–3:26)

• NAG names the public as the biggest winner because the litigation gave people an unusually revealing look behind the curtain of celebrity publicity and media strategy.
• She says audiences now better understand how celebrity PR operates, including how stories can be planted and how headlines may originate from one side's camp rather than emerging independently.
• For NAG, the experience has fundamentally changed the way she consumes celebrity media because she feels better equipped to recognise the machinery operating behind a particular narrative.
• She therefore sees the public gaining greater media literacy and scepticism as one of the lasting consequences of the case.
• NAG ends on a personal note: LGA, Britt and NAG also "won" because the case brought the three of them together and led to their friendship as well as Dr. Nura.

📍NY Times v Wayfarer: NYT Motion for Summary Judgement on Attorneys' Fees & Cost has been granted (u/same-difference-ave)

📰 The Headlines vs. What Actually Happened (0:00–0:29)

• LGA opens with a TMZ headline saying Justin Baldoni’s studio was ordered to pay a six-figure sum in legal fees to The New York Times.
• LGA argues that framing makes the development sound more dramatic than the underlying order.
• According to LGA, the key context is that the Wayfarer parties did not meaningfully contest the amount The New York Times sought, yet the court still independently reduced the requested fees.
• That distinction becomes particularly important when comparing this relatively modest request with Blake Lively’s much larger fee application.

📑 How The New York Times Fee Case Got Here (0:29–2:27)

• LGA explains that The New York Times brought an anti-SLAPP action in New York state court seeking reimbursement for the legal fees it incurred defending against the defamation claims that had been dismissed.
• Wayfarer Studios sought to stay that proceeding while developments continued in the related federal litigation involving Lively and the Wayfarer parties.
• But circumstances changed significantly after that request: the federal litigation was ultimately settled and various appellate issues were resolved or abandoned.
• By the time the New York court addressed the matter, Wayfarer’s stay request had effectively become stale.
• Wayfarer did not submit substantive opposition to the summary judgment request or challenge the approximately $181,000 in attorney’s fees sought by The New York Times.

🔍 Even Without an Objection, the Court Scrutinised the Fees (2:27–4:11)

• LGA considers this the most significant part of the order: Wayfarer did not challenge the approximately $181,622.70 request, but the court still independently examined whether the fees were reasonable.
• She explains that a fee applicant carries the responsibility of establishing that the amount requested is justified by the services actually performed.
• The New York Times supported its application with a detailed affirmation from its Deputy General Counsel, outside counsel invoices and an in-house counsel hours log.
• Despite that documentation—and despite the absence of opposition—the court concluded that The New York Times was entitled to most, but not all, of what it requested.
• LGA uses this to illustrate that a fee request is not automatically accepted simply because the opposing party does not contest it.

✂️ Court Excludes Work Performed After the Dismissal (4:11–5:39)

• The court found the rates and hours associated with obtaining dismissal reasonable given the complexity and high-profile nature of the federal action.
• However, The New York Times also sought reimbursement for work performed after its dismissal, including work connected with seeking partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and facilitating potential appellate review.
• The court determined those later fees fell outside the recoverable scope because the relevant entitlement covered the work leading to dismissal.
• Removing those entries reduced the underlying recoverable amount from roughly $181,000 to approximately $141,000.
• The court separately allowed fees associated with preparing the fee application itself, resulting in a final award of $171,616.20, with interest applicable if payment is not timely made.

🧾 Why LGA Thinks the Documentation Matters (5:47–6:35)

• LGA stresses that The New York Times provided the court with the underlying invoices, supporting affirmations and records establishing the work for which reimbursement was sought.
• This meant the court had identifiable evidence from which it could assess the hours, rates and nature of the work.
• LGA contrasts that with the dispute surrounding Lively’s fee application, where much of the discussion has centred on the expert-created summary of billing information rather than the underlying invoices themselves.

⚖️ How Lively’s $8M Request Is Scrutinised (6:35–7:15)

• LGA believes the same basic reasoning could become significant when Judge Liman evaluates Lively’s application.
• In her view, recoverable work should be confined to legal work sufficiently connected to obtaining dismissal of the defamation claim for which fees were awarded.
• She argues that work occurring outside that scope should not become recoverable simply because it occurred during the broader litigation.
• More importantly, if a court independently reduced The New York Times’ roughly $181,000 request despite Wayfarer not challenging it, LGA expects the substantially larger and actively contested Lively application to receive particularly close scrutiny.
• Based on her own assessment, LGA continues to believe that an award somewhere in the couple-hundred-thousand-dollar range would be more consistent with the work involved than anything approaching $8 million.

🚨 LGA Pushes Back on the “Damages” Headlines (7:15–8:07)

• LGA finishes by addressing media coverage characterising the approximately $171,000 award as “damages.”
• She stresses that the award discussed here is attorney’s fees, not damages, which is an important legal distinction lost in some headlines.
• She also points to headlines emphasising that Baldoni or Wayfarer were “ordered to pay more than $170,000,” arguing that this framing maximises the dramatic impact while leaving out the procedural context.
• These headlines are designed to attract clicks, so readers should examine the underlying order before drawing conclusions about what a court actually decided.

📚 Relevant Content List:

📍Salient points from the judge's ruling in the Rebel case (u/Mysterio623)

📍 Screenshots: What Rebel posted in her stories that she was sued for defamation over — plus some texts she sent. (u/Mysterio623)

🇦🇺 NAG Reviews the Decision in Australia (0:00–1:31)

• NAG says many viewers asked to discuss the recent Australian court decision involving Rebel Wilson.
• NAG explains that, while she is familiar with U.S. law, she found the Australian judgment surprisingly difficult to read because of differences in legal terminology and drafting style.
• NAG is simply sharing her understanding of the ruling and invites Australian lawyers or viewers familiar with the case to correct her if she has misunderstood any aspect of the decision.

📜 The Court Narrowed the Case to One Statement (1:31–3:27)

• NAG explains that Charlotte MacInnes alleged four defamatory statements made by Rebel Wilson.
• According to the reading of the judgment, the court concluded that only one of the four statements was capable of being defamatory.
• The ruling is finding that the other three statements were not factual assertions capable of being proven true or false.
• The remaining statement concerned Rebel Wilson's claim that Charlotte MacInnes had told her Amanda Ghost engaged in inappropriate conduct before later denying she had ever made that allegation.

⚖️ The Court Did Not Decide Whether Sexual Harassment Occurred (2:57–3:48)

• NAG emphasizes that the judge expressly stated the court was not deciding whether Charlotte MacInnes had actually been sexually harassed.
• Likewise, the court did not determine whether Amanda Ghost engaged in any inappropriate conduct.
• Instead, the only factual question before the court was whether Charlotte MacInnes initially made the complaint to Rebel Wilson and later denied doing so.

👩‍⚖️ The Decision Turned Almost Entirely on Witness Credibility (3:48–6:30)

• NAG explains that the judge framed the dispute as a credibility contest because Rebel Wilson and Charlotte MacInnes gave conflicting accounts.
• According to NAG's reading, the judge expressed reservations about the credibility of all three principal witnesses:
  • Charlotte MacInnes
  • Amanda Ghost
  • Rebel Wilson
• However, the judge ultimately concluded that Rebel Wilson's evidence was more reliable than the others'.

📂 Why the Judge Rejected MacInnes' and Ghost's Evidence (4:39–6:30)

• NAG says the judge identified several reasons for questioning Charlotte MacInnes' and Amanda Ghost's testimony:
  • Their accounts conflicted with each other.
  • Their versions of events changed over time.
  • Their courtroom testimony did not align with contemporaneous documents and records.
• The judge commented on Charlotte MacInnes' demeanor while testifying, describing her as lacking insight into "her place in the world," which NAG interprets as the judge viewing her as inexperienced or not fully appreciating the seriousness of the situation.
• Regarding Amanda Ghost, the judge reportedly found she held more power within the relationship and likewise viewed inconsistencies between her testimony and contemporaneous evidence as damaging to her credibility.

🎭 Why the Judge Ultimately Believed Rebel Wilson (6:30–7:44)

• NAG says the judge acknowledged that Rebel Wilson had flaws as a witness, describing her as someone who tends to exaggerate or dramatize situations.
• Nevertheless, the judge found Wilson remained composed during lengthy cross-examination and ultimately considered her testimony more credible than that of MacInnes or Ghost.
• The court also considered allegations involving online campaigns, Melissa Nathan and related publicity, but concluded those issues did not undermine the judge's finding that Charlotte MacInnes had initially reported inappropriate conduct to Wilson.

🔒 The Breach of Confidence Claim Also Failed (7:44–8:57)

• NAG explains that MacInnes also alleged Rebel Wilson improperly disclosed confidential information.
• According to the ruling, that claim failed because the evidence did not establish that MacInnes had made a formal complaint of sexual harassment as opposed to simply reporting inappropriate behavior.
• As a result, the judge concluded the necessary elements of the confidentiality claim were not proven.

📱 Social Media Reputation Played an Unexpected Role (8:57–9:52)

• NAG highlights what she considers one of the most unusual parts of the judgment.
• In assessing whether several of Rebel Wilson's social media posts could be defamatory, the judge considered how readers generally viewed Wilson's online statements.
• According to NAG's reading, the court noted that many members of the public already viewed Rebel Wilson as unreliable or did not automatically believe everything she posted online.
• Ironically, NAG says this finding benefited Wilson because it supported the conclusion that several of the challenged statements were unlikely to be understood by readers as factual assertions capable of defaming Charlotte MacInnes.

📍Jennifer Abel's comment:

• I just have to say how much we have all appreciated your commentary throughout this case, and I know that I have personally learned so much about the legal side from your videos, how lawyers like you work, and the justice system overall which has been tremendously helpful as I've navigated this over the past two years. While hindsight is always 20/20, I wish I would have had more knowledge of my rights and what legal leg we have to stand on in these contentious situations where your privacy and safety is being violated. Instead of just thinking, well I've done nothing wrong so what is there to hide, and just blindly believing lawyers and professionals. If people can learn from my situation and avoid going through what I have, then this hurtful scrutiny and commentary about my life/work/character as a private person is a small price to pay. I just kindly ask that my current business and clients I work with please be kept out of it. I think everyone has vented to close friends in private conversations about those they care about the most in moments of frustration, especially in the field of talent representation. I've yet to meet someone who hasn't. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your continuous education to your audience as I know it will ultimately make for a more informed community. ❤️

📱 Theresa Says Jennifer Abel Made a Series of Avoidable Mistakes (0:01–1:42)

• Theresa says she has struggled to feel sympathy for Jennifer Abel because, in her view, multiple people warned Abel not to work for Stephanie Jones, but Abel chose to do so anyway.
• Abel should not have voluntarily surrendered a company phone that also contained her personal phone number, banking information, photos, emails, and private messages.
• Theresa says that if Theresa had been in the same situation, she would have insisted on wiping the phone or transferring personal data before returning company property.
• Theresa believes voluntarily providing both the phone and its passcode allowed the company to lawfully access information that later became part of the litigation.

💬 Text Messages Reflected Poor Professional Judgment (1:42–2:47)

• Theresa points to Jennifer Abel's text messages criticizing Justin Baldoni as examples of poor judgment.
• In Theresa's view, Abel's communications demonstrated a lack of professionalism for someone working in public relations.
• Theresa says she has little sympathy because she believes many of the problems were self-inflicted.

⚖️ Theresa Questions Why Justin Baldoni Continued Working With Abel (2:30–2:47)

• Theresa wonders why Justin Baldoni continued maintaining a professional relationship with Jennifer Abel.
• Theresa characterizes Baldoni as someone who repeatedly gives people additional opportunities even after serious errors.

👩🏽‍⚖️ Theresa Says Professional Consequences Aren't Applied Equally (2:47–5:35)

• Theresa broadens the discussion beyond Jennifer Abel, arguing that privilege plays a role in who receives second chances.
• Drawing on her own experiences as a Latina attorney, she says she has witnessed colleagues make significant mistakes without losing their jobs.
• She contrasts that with what she describes as much harsher scrutiny applied to women of color in professional environments.
• Theresa expresses frustration that individuals involved in this litigation—including Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan remain employed despite the conduct Theresa believes would have resulted in termination for many others.

💌 Direct Message to Jennifer Abel (5:45–7:40)

• Theresa addresses Jennifer Abel directly after noticing Abel had commented on one of her videos.
• While acknowledging that litigation is difficult, Theresa says that, as an experienced public relations professional, Abel should have anticipated that text messages could eventually become public.
• She questions why Abel did not:
  • Transfer her personal phone number.
  • Move her personal data.
  • Obtain a separate phone before resigning.
• Theresa says those precautions should have been obvious given Abel's profession and the circumstances surrounding her departure.

📂 Public Relations Professionals Should Expect Their Communications to Be Scrutinized (7:40–8:49)

• Theresa argues that PR professionals, especially those representing high-profile clients, should assume that anything they write could later become public through litigation or discovery.
• She believes Abel demonstrated poor judgment through:
  • Her text exchanges with Melissa Nathan.
  • Her comments about Stephanie Jones.
  • Her disparaging remarks about Justin Baldoni.
  • Writing statements that she simultaneously acknowledged should not be put in writing.
• Theresa says the case illustrates an important lesson that private text messages are not necessarily protected from discovery simply because they originate from a personal phone.

🤝 Theresa Says Jennifer Abel Owed Her Clients Better Judgment (8:49–9:53)

• Theresa states that, in her opinion, Jennifer Abel owed fiduciary duties to her clients, including Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, and Wayfarer, and believes the disclosed text messages suggest those duties were not met.
• She concludes by saying Jennifer Abel is fortunate that Justin Baldoni is a good person and has continued maintaining a professional relationship with her despite everything that has occurred.
• Theresa also reiterates her broader point about privilege, arguing that many professionals, particularly women of color would not have received similar opportunities after making comparable mistakes.
• She hopes Abel reflects on both the professional lessons from the litigation.

 📍Set Deadlines/Hearings — Document #254

📅 Trial Date Appears to Be Set (0:00–0:25)

• NAG says it appears Jones v. Abel now has a trial date on the court's docket.
• NAG has already been preparing materials on the case, including:
  • Charts.
  • Timelines.
  • Claim summaries.
  • Reorganized case documents.

🚀 Case Is Starting to Move Again (0:25–0:39)

• The case is now gaining momentum.
• Current scheduling indicates:
  • A trial is expected in early 2027.
  • A hearing is scheduled for August.
  • The parties have agreed on deadlines for dispositive motions, including summary judgment.

📂 Summary Judgment Will Reveal the Evidence (0:39–0:48)

• The upcoming summary judgment stage is particularly significant because it is typically when much of the underlying evidence becomes part of the public court record.

📺 More Jones v. Abel Coverage Coming

• With the case becoming active again, NAG says she will begin releasing the Jones v. Abel content she has already prepared.
• NAG believes many followers are ready for coverage as the litigation heads toward its next major milestones.

📚 Relevant Content List:

🧨🐉🐉👩🏻‍🤝‍👩🏼 Little Girl Attorney - Wayfarer Hits Back at Blake Lively’s Severely Over-Inclusive $8 Million Fee Request, Citing Judge Liman’s Own Ruling and Exposing Just How Much Unrelated Work Was Included By Blake Lively's Legal Team

🐉🐉🔥🧯Lawyeredup1 - Wayfarer Fires Back at Blake Lively’s Attorney’s Fees Request With a Strong, Well-Reasoned Opposition

🔥🎇👩🏼‍⚕️🩺 Notactuallygolden - Wayfarer “Surgically Destroys” Blake Lively’s $8 Million Fee Request: Attacks Her Expert, Exposes 82 Timekeepers and Allegedly Unreasonable Billing, and Argues She Failed to Meet Her Burden of Proof

🧠🤡🤢 Little Girl Attorney - The Psychology Behind Blake Lively’s $8 Million Fee Request Explained: Start High, Expect Less, Win the Headlines

💵 💰💲Little Girl Attorney - Why Blake Lively Had the Burden to Prove Every Dollar of Her $8 Million Fee Request; Wayfarer Only Had to Show Why the $8 Million Request Was Unreasonable and Didn’t Need to Calculate Blake Lively’s Fee Award

💼 Clients Control the Budget—Not the Law Firm (0:00–1:18)

• LGA explains that, having worked both as a litigator and now as a client who hires outside counsel, she has seen legal billing from both perspectives.
• While lawyers understand litigation costs better than most clients, the client ultimately decides how much they are willing to spend on a case.
• Companies and individuals regularly discuss budgets, staffing, litigation strategy, and expected costs with their lawyers before and throughout a case.

📑 Clients Can Reject Excessive Staffing (1:18–2:40)

• According to LGA, if a client receives an invoice showing 82 timekeepers working on a case, they have every right to question it.
• A client can ask:
  • Why so many attorneys are needed.
  • Whether the staffing can be reduced.
  • For a litigation budget.
  • Whether the work can be performed more efficiently.
• If the fee summary accurately reflects what Blake Lively actually paid, and if it represents only part of her overall legal bills, it suggests an extraordinarily expensive litigation strategy.

💸 If These Bills Are Accurate, LGA Believes Lively Overpaid (2:40–3:54)

• LGA says that if Blake Lively truly paid for the number of attorneys, hours, and resources reflected in the fee submission, then she believes Blake Lively was significantly overbilled.
• She notes it's possible the invoices included discounts or negotiated reductions, but even substantial discounts would still leave the overall legal spend unusually high.
• In her view, clients should actively monitor staffing levels instead of giving firms unlimited discretion over how many lawyers work on a matter.

🧾 How Monthly Legal Invoices Normally Work (3:08–4:17)

• LGA explains that large law firms typically bill clients every month.
• Those invoices usually identify:
  • Each attorney or staff member who worked.
  • Their hourly rate.
  • Time spent.
  • A detailed description of the work performed.
• She notes that the public filing contained only a summary of billing entries rather than the actual invoices Blake Lively would have received and reviewed during the litigation.

🤝 Clients Can Negotiate or Hire Someone Else (4:17–4:59)

• Hiring a law firm is ultimately a business decision.
• If a firm proposes a litigation strategy costing millions of dollars, a client can:
  • Accept the proposal.
  • Negotiate a lower budget.
  • Ask the firm to scale back resources.
  • Hire another firm willing to work within a different budget.
• LGA says firms either adapt to the client's budget or decline the representation.

🚨 Unlimited Budgets Lead to Unlimited Staffing (4:50–5:59)

• LGA believes that when a client places no meaningful budget limitations on a case, law firms have little incentive to limit staffing.
• She describes this type of litigation as a "dream case" for a large law firm because virtually every available resource can be assigned to the matter.
• Referring to reports that the legal teams even held an internal "summit," she questions:
  • Who attended.
  • Whether all attendees billed their time.
  • Whether those meetings were necessary.
• LGA says if she received an invoice charging for those kinds of meetings, she would want detailed explanations before approving payment.

🤔 A Massive Bill for a Limited Result (5:49–6:31)

• LGA argues that, assuming Blake Lively actually paid these fees, the outcome raises obvious questions.
• After spending millions on litigation, Lively ultimately dismissed her remaining claims through settlement rather than taking them to trial.
• LGA says that if promises had been made about likely outcomes that were never achieved, she would understand why a client would be frustrated by the amount spent.

⚖️ Wayfarer Faced Different Financial Pressures (6:31–7:42)

• LGA contrasts Lively's position with Wayfarer's.
• Wayfarer spent most of the litigation defending itself, leaving fewer strategic choices about whether to incur legal expenses.
• Even so, defendants must constantly weigh litigation costs against potential exposure.
• Drawing from her current work, LGA explains that businesses routinely require legal departments to justify every major litigation expense because legal fees generate costs not revenue.

📚 Relevant Content List:

🧨🐉🐉👩🏻‍🤝‍👩🏼 Little Girl Attorney - Wayfarer Hits Back at Blake Lively’s Severely Over-Inclusive $8 Million Fee Request, Citing Judge Liman’s Own Ruling and Exposing Just How Much Unrelated Work Was Included By Blake Lively's Legal Team

🐉🐉🔥🧯Lawyeredup1 - Wayfarer Fires Back at Blake Lively’s Attorney’s Fees Request With a Strong, Well-Reasoned Opposition

🔥🎇👩🏼‍⚕️🩺 Notactuallygolden - Wayfarer “Surgically Destroys” Blake Lively’s $8 Million Fee Request: Attacks Her Expert, Exposes 82 Timekeepers and Allegedly Unreasonable Billing, and Argues She Failed to Meet Her Burden of Proof

🧠🤡🤢 Little Girl Attorney - The Psychology Behind Blake Lively’s $8 Million Fee Request Explained: Start High, Expect Less, Win the Headlines

💵 💰💲Little Girl Attorney - Why Blake Lively Had the Burden to Prove Every Dollar of Her $8 Million Fee Request; Wayfarer Only Had to Show Why the $8 Million Request Was Unreasonable and Didn’t Need to Calculate Blake Lively’s Fee Award

⚖️ Lively Had the Burden of Proof (0:00–1:07)

• LGA explains that because Blake Lively was awarded attorney's fees under §47.1, the burden falls entirely on her to prove the amount she is entitled to recover.
• It is not Wayfarer's responsibility to calculate what should be paid. Instead, Lively had to present the evidence, legal authority, and calculations supporting her requested amount.
• While LGA believes the $8 million request may have had a PR strategy behind it, she emphasizes that legally this is not a negotiation; it is an evidentiary process where the applicant must justify every dollar requested.

📑 What a Proper Fee Application Should Have Looked Like (1:07–2:28)

• A well-supported fee petition would have clearly identified:
  • Which billing entries related solely to defending the dismissed defamation claim.
  • Supporting invoices or billing records showing what was billed or paid.
  • The attorneys and timekeepers involved.
  • Why that staffing level and number of hours were reasonable.
  • Why this case justified more time than comparable defamation cases.
  • A transparent mathematical calculation showing how the requested total was reached.
• The overall goal should have been to make it easy for the court to verify that the request matched Judge Liman's fee award.

🧮 The Judge's Job Is to Calculate a Reasonable Fee (2:28–4:53)

• Once the fee request is filed:
  • The opposing party points out why the request is unreasonable.
  • The judge (with assistance from law clerks) reviews the evidence, precedent, billing records, rates, staffing, and legal arguments.
• The court may reduce:
  • The number of attorneys or timekeepers considered reasonable.
  • The hourly rates.
  • The number of compensable hours.
  • Specific billing entries unrelated to the recoverable work.
• LGA stresses that the judge does not simply choose a number. The final award must be supported by calculations and explained in the written order.

📉 Why an Unclear Fee Submission Can Hurt the Applicant (3:02–5:19)

• LGA argues that if the fee submission contains vague summaries, mixed billing entries, or unclear documentation, it forces the court to do far more work.
• She notes that the judge has discretion to:
  • Accept the summaries as reliable.
  • Reject portions of them.
  • Reduce rates or hours.
  • In extreme circumstances, deny fees altogether if the applicant fails to meet the burden of proof.
• Although some commenters suggested Judge Liman could award $0, LGA believes that outcome is unlikely given how he has generally ruled throughout the litigation by splitting the baby. (granted in part and denied in part)

⚖️ Why LGA Expects Some Award—but Not $8 Million (5:19–6:40)

• LGA points out that Judge Liman has frequently "split the baby" on major motions throughout the case rather than granting or denying requests outright.
• Since he previously ruled that Lively was entitled to some attorney's fees under §47.1, she expects he will award something, though likely nowhere near the requested $8 million.
• In her view, the ultimate award will result from the court's calculations—not from simply reducing the requested figure by an arbitrary percentage.

🛡️ Wayfarer's Role Was to Challenge, Not Calculate (6:40–8:12)

• LGA emphasizes that Wayfarer's only obligation was to show why Lively's request was unreasonable—not to prepare its own competing fee calculation.
• She notes that Wayfarer instead:
  • Challenged the reliability of the supporting documents.
  • Argued the request included excessive and unrelated work.
  • Compared Lively's request with The New York Times' much smaller fee application (approximately $181,000) to illustrate how disproportionate the $8 million request appeared.
• LGA believes that comparison implicitly suggests a figure closer to that range would be more consistent with similar fee awards.

💰 LGA's Expected Outcome (8:12–8:24)

• LGA concludes that the court must now work through the submitted records and determine what is actually reasonable.
• Based on the way the request was presented, she predicts the final award will likely be only a small fraction of the amount sought.
• Her estimate is no more than approximately $250,000, though she acknowledges the final decision rests entirely with Judge Liman.