r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

This popped up on my YouTube feed, and I thought I'd share. Definitely a creative, funny, and satisfying take!

Description: The massive collapse of Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds' brand and the drama has taken Hollywood by surprise. In this video, we break down the PR disasters, failing business ventures, and why the ultimate celebrity power couple's empire might be completely running out of time.

-----

Summary:

The video is a satirical commentary featuring an animated dog and cat discussing Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds' public image after the Justin Baldoni controversy.

Main points:

• The hosts argue that Blake and Ryan wish they could return to their "pre-Baldoni" era, when they were viewed as Hollywood's golden couple.
• They claim the controversy permanently damaged their reputations and that traditional celebrity PR tactics no longer work in the social media era.
• Blake's appearance at the 2026 Met Gala is presented as an attempt to restore her former image, but the commentators argue it backfired because audiences now view celebrity culture differently.
• The hosts repeatedly characterize Blake as controlling, image-conscious, and overly focused on managing public perception, citing her interactions with staff during the Met Gala and previous interviews as examples.
• Ryan is portrayed as similarly controlling, with the video alleging he has a history of taking over projects and trying to shape narratives.
• Throughout the video, the commentators argue that independent online creators and internet users now have more influence than legacy entertainment media, making it harder for celebrities to rehabilitate their reputations through traditional PR.
• They also speculate that both Blake's and Ryan's careers, business ventures, and brand partnerships have suffered as a result of the controversy.
• The hosts conclude that the only effective path forward would be a genuine apology, transparency, and staying out of the spotlight for a while, but they express skepticism that either of them would take that approach.

The video mixes commentary with humor, movie/TV references (Back to the Future, The Twilight Zone, The Wizard of Oz, Pinky and the Brain, Carol Burnett, etc.), and recurring jokes from the animated dog and cat. Overall, it's strongly critical of Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds and presents the opinion that their attempts to rebuild their public image are failing.

Submitting falsified and erroneous invoices to. FEDERAL COURT shows insane hubris, and for Liman not to be offended and even entertaining awarding $1 is making his career and courtroom look like an entire sham! HOW is he just NOT OVER THIS WHOLE THING BY NOW? I understand that he’s not the kind of guy who’s going to go down the road of holding them legally accountable for gross misrepresentation, but the entire time that he was giving Lively and her attorneys all of the slack and concessions that he DID, there’s no appeal opportunity, and in light of the whole Taylor swift snub on Friday, he need not concern himself with the business circles that his brother and the Ari Emmanuel’s of the world once shared with Lively and Reynolds any longer, as the latter are now completely irrelevant. The industry has clearly spoken, Lively and Reynolds are no longer contenders. Ergo, Liman needs to deny ANY attorneys fees and show the public that he’s not a joke and have Blake brought to justice regarding this attempt to defraud and con. Gottlieb’s career has GOT to be destroyed, if not so, he definitely has zero credibility at this juncture, this is his last high-profile case, no doubt. My opinion is that in the wake of the #metoo movement, Ezra and Michael thought they had a ‘sure thing’, and were counting their paychecks in advance, and were not aware that Lively lied and completely fabricated all of the allegations, and by the time they realized such, they had made a monster and they couldn’t extricate themselves out of the situation. Similar to how Blake lied to TS about being sexually harrassed by Baldoni.

Wondering if Blake (Ryan) is going to go full psycho-arsonist scorched earth and publicize the ten years worth of text messages that Blake (Ryan) threatened Swift with if she didn’t cooperate and do as they wished last year…which is why the friendship ended…and why Scott Swift called Baldoni’s attorneys…
I can TOTALLY see Ryan ‘leaking’ the correspondence now that the wedding is over and they were uber-dissed. I just feel like Ryan is even more upset than Blake about not having been invited- Spielberg was there, EVERYONE was there, he NEEDED TO BE THERE, and this was the ULTIMATE nail in the coffin for both of them- they are completely irrelevant and blacklisted in the industry. I can see him being so incredibly vindictive and trashing Taylor Swift and attempting to take her down. And he’s gonna do it SOON- like, tomorrow. They are gonna go to the Post or another MSM source, and blame the leak on another source, or data breach, or whatever to deflect blame. What a honeymoon for TNT it’s gonna be for them! Can you imagine waking up after coming off of your dream wedding, and your brand new husband is going to be reading text messages in print that refer to past lovers…Ten years of texts between TS and BL, trashing and making fun of colleagues, friends, comparing penis sizes of A-listers, this will be the ultimate feeding frenzy! I can see this happening, Reynolds is extremely vindictive, nasty and has a terrible temper. I mean, this is a guy who burned his elementary school to the ground…and the two of them were holding out to the last minute that they were getting an invite…supposedly, BL had a bespoke Dior created and waiting..wonder how she knew Swift was also going Dior haute couture? I sincerely hope that they aren’t spending their weekend bearing their children. I don’t think either one of them is particularly happy right now…!!

I think what's really upset me the most about this case is Lively's lawyers and what they've gotten away with. And what they're likely to get away with. Their Summary of Fees and Expenses contains multitudes (of problematic entries).

I got a wild hair and thought it would be fun (my definition of fun, lol) to create a A Table of Unreasonable Fees, if you will.

Realistically, I don't think Wayfarer can address the sheer amount of issues in their 10 page response. I bet they mainly focus on the block billing/lack of invoices and the authority of the "expert" saying Lively's fees are reasonable. As well as hopefully ask for a significant percentage reduction. I think an Exhibit with a table would be helpful (and hope they add one).

I've opened this up to anyone who is interested. Anyone can add to it.

For each entry I have the following fields:

* Invoice #

* Work Date

* Timekeeper

* Hours

* Amount

* Description of Fees

* Category

* Duplicative Entries (if applicable)

* Unreasonable Nature of Fees

* Case Law (to support why this is unreasonable)

The Categories I've come up with so far are:

• Overstafffed
• Excessive Research
• Redundant
• Redcated/Insufficiently Documented
• Vague Billing (Like “attention to case”)
• Administrative/Clerical or Non-Legal Tasks
• Intraoffice Conferencing (excessive meetings/contacts between the law firms without justification)
• Unrelated Claim or Unrelated Work
• Otherwise unnecessary
• Duplicative (dumbattorney's suggestion)

Did Taylor just create the largest, most inclusive (of seemingly everyone she’s met or worked with) wedding at freaking MSG just so she could very, very, very clearly not invite Blake?
If so, well damn, we should all be a little afraid of Taylor and a little impressed at the level of petty.

Question #1: Why do Michael Gottlieb's invoice numbers and invoice dates stop in 2026?

Exhibit B is divided into ~six separate billing lists—three for Willkie Farr & Gallagher and three for Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Every one of those lists includes a place for an Invoice Number and Invoice Date for each billing entry.

On all three of Willkie's lists, the Invoice Number and Invoice Date are filled in for the 2025 entries. Beginning with the 2026 entries, however, the Invoice Number and Invoice Date are suddenly missing on Willkie's first and third list. See photos. The second list stops in 2025 so there is no entries in 2026. (note they also have a second 3rd-expense list with a few 2026 entires, that is just confusing, but in general 2026 has missing invoice dates and numbers).

On Manatt's lists, there are no missing Invoice Numbers or Invoice Dates for any year.

There may be a simple explanation for this, but I'm curious why Michael Gottlieb's firm's billing lists no longer include invoice numbers or invoice dates beginning in 2026. I can't say I know but it looks like something changed in 2026 or they are rather behind in their invoicing.

https://preview.redd.it/0cvj4l130abh1.png?width=2042&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2f01b4e30b5e39cdce2697c72ece4d382f78196

https://preview.redd.it/uivjiyd50abh1.png?width=1991&format=png&auto=webp&s=0fd4c7ea0afbb6ce1bc2f5b2944a7d6be5d071c7

https://preview.redd.it/1onup2080abh1.png?width=2058&format=png&auto=webp&s=c66948f3cf8c74a6826000e219c42d844d330f22

Question #2: How do Manatt's billing lists correspond to the expert's categories?

Edit: I am deleting this one because i do think Manatt has three lists as well.

Question #3: Who categorized the billing and made the legal distinctions?

I also couldn't figure out who decided which fees were categorized as "Fees Related to Defense of Matter" and which were categorized as "Fees Related to Both Matters." (and what fees were categorized as just related to Lively and were excluded)

The methodology isn't clear. Did the expert review the billing and make those determinations herself? Or was she given "invoice spreadsheets" she mentioned that had already been categorized by someone else? Lawyers? Maybe I missed an explanation somewhere. Maybe it doesn't matter (if i was paying 8m, it would matter).

These are legal distinctions, not accounting questions, so I think it's fair to ask who made those categorization decisions and how they were made. Did lawyers make these and which ones?

If you're asking the court and the opposing party to rely on spreadsheets instead of invoices (which you can do it seems), those spreadsheets should stand on their own and clearly explain the fee request. I think they should at least track with the categories and be labeled so you can follow along a little better. I wonder if others who have not provided invoices to courts, have presented something with so many questions. Maybe you can get creative with how you present it. This I do not know, but I find the missing 2026 invoices # odd at least.

I wanted to do a quick follow-up after our post yesterday which explains in excruciating detail what I personally think about the 47.1 fee documentation on Lively's side.

I think it's a very plausible comparison to look at whatever the NYT filed in their anti-SLAPP lawsuit in NY state court. It should be imo comparable attorney's fees for getting the same defamation claim dismissed at the same point in time, after the same amount of discovery, and against the same plaintiffs.

https://preview.redd.it/durpes80m8bh1.png?width=558&format=png&auto=webp&s=db001c2aa8bf86f4c577dd8ce159cb726a9c63d6

So. What exactly did they file as their documentation when asking for their attorney's fees covered?

1. The declaration of David McCraw, the NYT's in-house attorney who lead the defense team against Wayfarer. He personally attested about the true and correct documentation of the attorney's fees under penalty of perjury.

https://preview.redd.it/edl0zpnpm8bh1.png?width=909&format=png&auto=webp&s=34aab5de823c1faf727ff6d99c5153220e9d6c70

https://preview.redd.it/eiva6wpem8bh1.png?width=823&format=png&auto=webp&s=53466fb5d7d341ce956c5261a17dc6755bacc937

https://preview.redd.it/rix9qq3tm8bh1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd1a8a1a59978e1f5ac936ef9dcdcfc6242f930c

They did have external counsel (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) as well, and their team was lead by Katherine Bolger.

https://preview.redd.it/p1fe37lbo8bh1.png?width=817&format=png&auto=webp&s=aad4fd329dad17bd64808e791615edd37b4ba6cd

https://preview.redd.it/ku54n58go8bh1.png?width=986&format=png&auto=webp&s=2dda307594111498c5a0e386c776b7bf3bfdeef6

2. They filed for summary judgment, and attached the documentation about external counsel's attorney's fees (Exhibit E), which is what I would expect such a documentation to look like. It does start with a very similar summary table, than what Lively filed.

https://preview.redd.it/uatrx7mpl8bh1.png?width=950&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a9c3e9078b60220edfc8eb913be84a755ca1ff7

But directly from the next page in the PDF, Mr. McCraw filed every single invoice they have received from DWT (I won't give all of them, cause the whole PDF is 37 pages) with both the names of Mr. McCraw and Ms. Bolger on it.

https://preview.redd.it/1gi845p2n8bh1.png?width=880&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0022fc278146130dd01bacd70793eaf37e65e3d

Especially in the big sum invoices, DWT also attached a breakdown of what they did, when and how long. I would specifically like to point out the level of detail that the descriptions have in each entry.

https://preview.redd.it/d5xlprl7n8bh1.png?width=873&format=png&auto=webp&s=7915d99f019318713eee179713d42ed6b2d02ebf

In the end, Mr. McCraw also happened to declare under penalty of perjury that the in-house hours in Exhibit H are also true and correct.

https://preview.redd.it/ulpxjudgp8bh1.png?width=822&format=png&auto=webp&s=c01a60a8c57a1f9c39844d73d2b808a6718f21ae

--

In comparison to this kind of documentation, what did the Lively team do?

Gottlieb: he's willing to testify about the facts under oath, if necessary. But the only thing that he mentioned in connection with what Ms. Kantner filed is that the rates are correct. As far as he knows.

https://preview.redd.it/2zeg3a62q8bh1.png?width=819&format=png&auto=webp&s=923b38ec490afafbcbb496f9beae0980eee08283

https://preview.redd.it/r5a19ccbq8bh1.png?width=802&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f72de55f926085bb9f8f8394b39e4586811bbec

https://preview.redd.it/5wtgdetcq8bh1.png?width=791&format=png&auto=webp&s=29279400024e0e1663a75ddeeac36e2953856759

Hudson: didn't even mention Kantner or Exhibit B at all.

Diana Kantner: she is neither from Willkie, nor Mannatt.

https://preview.redd.it/2d8jwppzq8bh1.png?width=822&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f98d9f96aa2420b1bab54bb2d85e93c5597f79d

She got a bunch of invoices from Mannatt and Willkie, which - as far as I can tell - she has no possibility to double-check, if they were correct and complete, or not.

https://preview.redd.it/49ymrvvbr8bh1.png?width=824&format=png&auto=webp&s=62f4b8e194eb04a32b981b5c2ab1a225836242d6

She was not part of the litigation team, she never represented Lively and as far as I can tell, she cannot declare it under penalty of perjury that these costs are indeed a true and correct copy of all the relevant work the attorneys did for Lively - like Mr. McCraw did for the New York Times.

https://preview.redd.it/lyljbxwqr8bh1.png?width=1054&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd40c48d28d54cace6e3733ec7ad134afbd32130

The authentication of the 4.000+ fee entries imo would've been the job of Hudson and Gottlieb, compared to the documentation that the New York Times provided for their anti-SLAPP suit. I am VERY surprised and curious why neither of them did that, and why the only person who ever said under penalty of perjury that these are a true and correct copy of the attorney's fees is an external financial expert, who is not employed by either of the law firms working for Lively.

I only have highly speculative, and not particularly good-faith theories about why, but without any actual evidence I don't find it ethical to write them into the post.

Remember when Lively withdrew her emotional distress claims at the end of May 2025? Turns out that in March, the lawyers were researching the consequences of providing documentation from psychotherapists and physicians. There are two line items that say

1. "Conduct research re: psychotherapist-patient privilege." (page 37)
2. "Draft correspondence to M. Connolly re: psychotherapist-patient and physician-patient privilege waiver research" (page 38)

Hey, Gottlieb, remember your stupid ass lie of "five psychiatrists and five mistresses" against Baldoni? What's good??

Anyway, shoutout to Leanne Newton for spotting this. Also a belated shoutout for her being completely correct with her theory that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds' lawyers would include Reynolds' bills in their request for attorneys' fees, which they did. I linked to the exact timestamp where Leanne points out the first psychotherapist entry, but I encourage you to watch the whole video if you want to get a sense of some of the types of entries the lawyers included that they shouldn't. For example, right above the psychotherapist item is one that says "research re discovery requests involving children," which is a very big WTF.

Lively and Reynolds' spreadsheet of attorneys' fees: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.2_1.pdf

Leanne Newton's theory on how Lively and Reynolds' lawyers would pad their fee request: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZTNf07lRek

Lively withdrawing emotional distress claim: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.266.0_1.pdf

Gottlieb's unhinged mistresses and psychiatrists footnote (I'm never letting this one go lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.95.0.pdf