Supporting an accused perpetrator or questioning allegations may feel like a personal opinion, but those messages can affect whether victim-survivors feel believed and safe speaking about their own experiences.
Something worth keeping in mind when discussing allegations online.
Judge Lewis J. Liman has directed the parties to refile public versions of previously sealed exhibits by August 24, 2026. This order requires the parties to ensure these filings are appropriately redacted to remove personally identifying information (PII) and other sensitive material in a manner consistent with the court's earlier mandates.
The court has noted that because the parties failed to explicitly address a long list of prior sealing motions, specifically Dkt. Nos. 128, 157, 175, 181, 183, 202, 207, and 215, those requests are considered waived. The Clerk of Court has been directed to close those specific docket entries.
Jones Parties states that they do not require any continued sealing for their previous motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 162, 165, 190, 204, and 222).
However, they note that upon any refiling, they will still redact personally identifying information (PII) such as phone numbers, email addresses, and personal pictures, in accordance with the Court's previous orders.
Wayfarer defendants are requesting to maintain redaction's and continued sealing of specific potions of the following exhibits:
Reasons for sealing
Exhibit B: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.1.pdf
Exhibit 7: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.2.pdf
Exhibit 8: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.3.pdf
Exhibit 13: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.4.pdf
Steph Jones letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.258.0.pdf
Wayfarer/TAG letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.0.pdf
Exhibit 8 is IMO damning for TAG!
Blake thanked the actresses for “all the joy you have brought so many.”
It is deeply saddening to learn of Haydn’s passing. I was so moved by her recent interview on Jay Shetty’s podcast. I just finished reading her book which was equally heartbreaking and inspiring. My condolences to her little girl and all of those that knew and loved her. 💕
"Baking with genius food friends and their kitchen mixer the size of a car... this is what my happy place looks like."
You can just see how much genuine joy she finds in the process. For her, the kitchen isn't just about cooking, it's a true creative sanctuary where she gets to experiment, play, and lose herself in the art of making something wonderful! 💕
From what I've seen, atleast in online spaces, the general consensus seems to be that 'both sides are bad' and 'they need to just go away'. But somehow, every comment section about Blake even if it's just a simple picture of her is filled with hate and vile comments. Even from people who insist they don't like Baldoni as well but happily spread the talking points of his smear campaign anyway. I posted some pictures of her on some subreddits and unlike with other actresses, the comment section turned to one where people talk about her character than her looks. It's wild how easily manipulated people are and they refuse to see it.
Will this ever change in coming years? Can Blake get a comeback like Brie Larson or Olivia Wilde, who also went through similar online hate campaigns before? Will the perspective about the case itself change from the current mainstream media narrative that all of it was just a waste of money and time?
“We’re the golden ones, we’re special! Now follow the f***ing script” 😂😂😂😂
During Marvel Studios' D23 presentation, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman appeared in a humorous promotional video where they playfully "competed" for a spot in the massive multiversal crossover, confirming that both characters will join the fight alongside the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men.
I just know Blake’s outfit for the Premiere will be 🔥 I love to see good things happen for good people ❤️
Lively has filed her response to Wallace's Appeal, pushing to uphold the Texas District Court's dismissal.
Here is a quick summary of the core arguments:
Ultimately, Lively's brief leans heavily on the idea that Wallace is trying to force a New York resident into an inconvenient, out-of-state forum over a dispute rooted in California administrative filings. With the legal chess match continuing to play out across multiple fronts, this appeal will be a crucial test of how strictly the Fifth Circuit guards its jurisdictional and venue boundaries.
Read the full brief here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.56.0.pdf
Wallace's Appellate brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.45.0.pdf
What makes the article particularly interesting is her honesty about the initial media cycle, she admits that when the initial backlash dropped against Blake Lively (much like with Amber Heard), she initially bought into the idea that there were valid reasons for the hate, until a deep-dive podcast episode (Shameless Media's coverage of The It Ends With Us mess) forced her to re-examine how the narrative was actually being engineered.
From there, she breaks down the mechanics of "astroturfing," character assassination, and why we keep falling for the trap of treating these multi-million dollar PR campaigns like a simple back-and-forth tennis match.
Blake and Ryan also became the first couple since Bruce Willis and Demi Moore to star in the No 1 movie and No 2 movie at the US box office.
Vituscka alleges that Daily Mail executives and legal counsel improperly pressured and coerced him into executing an incomplete, misleading sworn declaration regarding his text messages about publicist Leslie Sloane. He further claims that after he raised internal ethical objections to the statement and submitted a whistleblower report, the outlet terminated his employment in unlawful retaliation.
Causes of Action:
Statutory violation of state whistleblower protection laws (e.g., NY Labor Law § 740).
Vituscka asserts that he engaged in protected whistleblower activity when he formally reported and objected to internal misconduct regarding the draft subpoena declaration. He claims his sudden termination was direct, unlawful retaliation for reporting that the outlet was pressuring a employee-witness to submit a misleading statement under penalty of perjury.
Fraudulent inducement / Breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The filing claims Daily Mail management and corporate counsel coerced him into signing his initial June 2025 declaration. Vituscka alleges he was induced to sign an incomplete statement drafted primarily to shield the outlet and third-party PR contacts (such as Leslie Sloane) from broader discovery and depositions, despite his explicit warnings that the draft omitted critical context.
Breach of contract and failure to provide independent legal counsel.
Vituscka contends that when he was dragged into the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation as a third-party witness purely due to his reporting duties, the Daily Mail had a legal and contractual duty to protect his interests. Instead, he claims the company prioritised its corporate relationships over his defense, creating an irreconcilable conflict of interest by steering his testimony without offering him unconflicted, independent representation.
Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage / Injurious falsehood.
The complaint alleges that the Daily Mail’s public positioning and subsequent termination of Vituscka framed him as a rogue reporter acting outside journalistic norms. Vituscka claims this publicly destroyed his journalistic credibility, torpedoed his career, and caused severe financial, emotional, and reputational damages.
1st declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf
2nd declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.0.pdf
Court filing: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=S_PLUS_X/dAjbdeJOY0K45ADgQQ==
In her opposition to the Wallace Parties’ motion for discovery (Docket Entry 62), Lively's legal team argues that the request to depose her a second time is both untimely and meritless. Lively points out that the Wallace Parties waited nearly three months after briefing closed to seek a "do-over," having knowingly and voluntarily waived any right to further discovery by failing to act during the proper window. Furthermore, Lively refutes their core justification, that they need to examine her malice regarding "allegations of sexual harassment," by clarifying that the premise is entirely false: she has never accused Jed Wallace of sexual harassment. Instead, she notes that their defamation claims rely solely on a legal caption rather than the actual substance of her administrative complaint, which focused exclusively on retaliation and which they have already thoroughly questioned her about in a prior deposition.
The Wallace Parties attempted to justify their three-month delay by pointing out that a court in the Southern District of New York recently agreed with the arguments Ms. Lively raised in her April 27 fee motion regarding the burden of proving malice. However, Lively's opposition notes that they were fully aware of those arguments all along and could have attached evidence, requested a hearing, or sought further discovery by their original opposition deadline on May 11, rather than trying to use a favorable ruling in another jurisdiction as an excuse for a late "do-over."
Lively's legal team points out that the Wallace Parties' counsel thoroughly questioned her during her 2025 deposition regarding the exact documents at issue, failing to identify any genuinely new information they need to uncover. Furthermore, while the Wallace Parties concede that discovery for a fee motion requires court permission, they spent weeks trying to enforce a deposition notice without ever seeking that leave, making their accusations that Lively acted improperly both frivolous and hypocritical. Characterising this maneuver as a bad-faith attempt to smear her character and pressure her into dropping her claims, Lively asks the Court to deny the motion and add the fees incurred in responding to her Section 47.1 award.
Court filing:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.0.pdf
Deposition excerpt:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.1.pdf
Exhibit B: Read these emails!https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.2.pdf
Laura Lee Prather declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.3.pdf
Michael Gottlieb declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.4.pdf
I used to love Collider because they were a really good source for movie news. So, I was pretty disappointed to see this article on their platform titled [8 actors who damaged their own careers](https://collider.com/actors-damaged-their-own-careers/) where the author shamelessly clubs actresses like Brie Larson, Rachel Zegler and Blake Lively with male actors with actual accusations of abuse and violent behaviour.
And in Blake's case, also peddles Baldoni's narrative using half truths and complete distortion of the timeline of events. There's absolutely no mention of the SH claims being dismissed on technicality or his lawsuit being dismissed and him having to pay her legal fees. Honestly, Collider has shown itself to be an untrustworthy rag with this article in my opinion. Shame on them and the author of this nasty clickbait hitpiece.
The internet is forever. So once the tides turn, I hope these flops never get to rewrite history that they were always on Blake's side.
This post has made my weekend! Happy Saturday everyone! Have a wonderful weekend ❤️