u/wastedartistry

Link to article: https://jang.com.pk/en/65686-justin-baldoni-ready-to-work-with-blake-lively-again-in-it-ends-with-us-sequel-report-news

“This settlement is a resounding victory for Blake Lively. By agreeing to this settlement, and waiving their right to appeal, Justin Baldoni and every individual defendant now face personal liability for abusing the legal system to silence and intimidate Ms. Lively. And by admitting that Ms. Lively’s concerns “deserved to be heard,” the defendants have ended once and for all the fiction that Ms. Lively “fabricated” claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. From day one Blake Lively’s mission was clear: expose and hold accountable those who weaponize smear campaigns and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors. That mission continues."

Okay so I went through Jed Wallace’s deposition (yes, all of it 😭) and I honestly don’t know how anyone is still saying “there was no smear campaign” with a straight face.

Because the actual materials in this case are full of language like:

• “manage the narrative”
• “influence conversations in real time”
• “leverage Reddit, Discord, X, TikTok”
• “throw a ton of upvotes at positive content”
• “downvote negative content”
• “dominate messaging”

That’s coming straight from documents shown to him in the deposition. then he gets under oath and suddenly it’s:

• “we only do monitoring”
• “we can’t manipulate algorithms”
• “we don’t boost or suppress content”
• “I don’t even have a digital team”
• “that was just puffing”

So now we’re supposed to believe that all of that language all of those strategy descriptions, were just… vibes? exaggeration? nothing real? BFFR! Then there’s the money. He describes his fee as $30K/month but the materials show a $25K/month scope that increases to $30K/month tied to more social chatter and expanded services.  

So again if this was just “monitoring”… why does the price go up when more digital activity is needed? That’s not how “just watching things” works.

And this wasn’t some isolated one-off either.

The deposition references other contexts and names: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rebel Wilson, Carolina Hurley, Leonardo Maria Del Vecchio, in conversations about digital strategy and PR positioning.

Across those, you see the same kind of language:

• managing sentiment
• shaping narratives
• influencing what people see and engage with

So this idea that this was all just meaningless “puffery” doesn’t really hold up when it keeps showing up in multiple contexts.

 few other things that don’t help:

• ~$90K total paid
• regular communication with Melissa Nathan on Signal
• multiple references to his “digital team”… which he then says doesn’t exist and he never corrected

The part I keep coming back to is this:

If none of this was real…
why does it read like a strategy?

And if he “can’t do any of this”…
why is he in these conversations, being paid, and described as someone who can?

link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.2.pdf

Okay this one isn’t flashy, but it’s actually kind of huge once you read it.

So the court just ruled on what parts of the case can stay sealed (aka hidden) vs. what has to be made public. And Jed Wallace + Katherine Case specifically tried to keep certain information under wraps mainly the names tied to PR activity / prospective clients.

The judge said no, and the reasoning is what makes this interesting. First, the court points out that some of the material they’re trying to hide actually shows they were never even formally engaged by certain individuals. Which… already raises questions about why those names needed to be sealed in the first place.

Second, the judge notes that some of this information is already public or has already been reported, which means the privacy argument doesn’t really hold up.

So the result is:

• The motions to seal those names were denied
• The documents have to be re-filed publicly
• Only basic personal info (like emails/phone numbers) can stay redacted

That’s where this becomes more than just a procedural thing, because if this case really was just “normal PR” and nothing unusual was happening… why the push to keep those connections hidden?

Now those materials are going to be re-filed with minimal redactions, which means we could start seeing:

• more names
• more connections
• more insight into who was involved and how

At the same time, the court is making it pretty clear that this kind of PR-related activity isn’t something that automatically stays behind closed doors, especially when it’s tied to the core claims in the case.

So yeah… although this isn’t a dramatic ruling on its own, it definitely feels like a setup for more information coming out.

Given everything else that’s already been alleged about narrative shaping and coordinated messaging… the timing of that transparency push is interesting!