r/teamjustinbaldoni

The tea is piping hot today, and honestly it’s the juiciest gossip I’ve heard in a while. Let's talk about what really went down because the layers here are insane.

First up, Anna Wintour wasn't invited either and she was on home turf. She gave Blake a pass to the Met Gala but apparently couldn't secure her own invite this time. The friend group dynamics are shifting too. I'm hearing Ryan, Blake, Emily Blunt and John Krasinski are no longer friends. Allegedly Blake was way too flirty with John and made Emily VERY uncomfortable. And here's the craziest part, Ryan and Blake have been fighting since before she started IEWU. She had the same behavior on set and Ryan grew jealous.

Now let's get into the Taylor wedding drama because this is where it gets wild. Blake literally had a custom DIOR dress made and put on standby just in case Taylor changed her mind at the last minute. That is next level preparation. I asked Google if Scarlett Johansson and Colin Jost were invited and attended and Google said yes but we all know not to trust Google too much so can anyone confirm this for me?!

Here is my honest take. If Blake had not received so much international backlash, Taylor might have invited her. But there was no way Taylor was going to risk getting that hate thrown towards her. Add that to the way Blake manipulated everything to hijack the movie and ruin a man's life. And before anyone comes at me, maybe Blake did feel strange with Justin. He is a gentleman, overly thoughtful, takes ownership and many people might get the ick from that because they are not used to a man treating them like that and assume he is a pushover. But that in no way justifies the false SA accusations and everything else.

Let's not forget about awful Jenny Slate either. She definitely wasn't there. But Taylor is no angel either. She participated in Blake's mean girl scheme and that is another reason Taylor wants the distance. She doesn't want anyone connecting the dots. That relationship is OVER. Taylor would have NEVER stayed home if she had been invited. They need to be so for real. Oh if she was invited she would be there because it is always about her.

I love this for them. Blake couldn't take authorship of Taylor and Travis's wedding and do her famous rug pull where she takes over everything from the decorations to Taylor's dress to being the maid of honor. Blake would NEVER stay home to not outshine Taylor. Imagine realizing your bestie lied about sexual harassment and tried to drag you into it asking you to lie. I would have dropped her too. That speaks to character. It is not something you forgive.

This warms my heart like a little kitten cuddled up by the fire. The embarrassment is flooding over Blake with 8 million tiny violins playing just for her.

In my mind, without Travis, there might be some hope for Blake and Taylor's relationship. He would’ve rather invited Justin Baldoni and his wife to their wedding. Just a theory. #blakelively #taylorswift #taylorswiftwedding #traviskelce

The two women were once thick as thieves, so close that Lively named Swift godmother to all three of the daughters she shares with her husband Ryan Reynolds.

But what once seemed an indissoluble bond was torpedoed after Swift was embarrassingly dragged into Lively's legal battle with Justin Baldoni.

This Friday, Swift and her groom Travis Kelce welcomed a cavalcade of celebrities to their nuptials at Madison Square Garden, which were officiated by Adam Sandler and featured performances by Stevie Nicks, Paul McCartney and the bride herself.

Now, a source has exclusively informed the Daily Mail of Lively's fury over her rejection, which has set a match to any chance she and Swift might mend fences in the future.

Lively is 'sad and a little bit ped. No, a lot ped,' said the insider. 'That friendship was over before but if there was hope, it's gone. They'll never be friends again.'

The Daily Mail has contacted Lively and Swift's representatives for comment.

The rest of the article is here

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds were not among the many guests at Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's star-studded wedding. #Justin Baldoni #blakelively

Disclaimer: There are likely additional billing entries related to these filings hidden among the more generic descriptions. These are just the ones I've identified so far based on their dates and descriptions, which seem to correspond with filings from around the same time.

1-6: Invoices

7: Blake's Amended R&O

8: Wayfarer's Motion to Compel

9: Blake's Opposition

10: Order on Motion to Compel

11: Blake's Letter Request for Clarification Re: Order

12: Memo Re: Order

Fuckn BRUTAL stealth roast from TMZ article

📚 Relevant Content List:

📍 Fees and Expenses Invoices u/Mysterio623

🔥💰🤬🧨 Little Girl Attorney - $7.5 Million for ONE Defamation Claim? Where Are the Actual Invoices Supporting the $7.5 Million Fee Request?(Part 1) (Must watch)

🔥💰🤬🧨 Little Girl Attorney - The "Inextricably Intertwined" Fee Strategy: What's Really Included in the $8 Million Fee Request? (Part 2) (Must watch)

🧠💰🧮 Notactuallygolden - Is the $8 Million Fee Request a Negotiation Strategy? Three Things That Stood Out in the Expert Report

📍 Let's go over Blake Lively's attorney fees math, cause I'm hella confused AH u/Mysterio623

☄️🤯💵💰Little Girl Attorney - Initial Quick Reaction: $7.5 Million in Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Remember, Judge Liman Awarded Fees and Costs for Only ONE Claim

📍 Lively files for 7.49 million in Attorneys’ Fees & Cost u/same-difference-ave

📍 Lively submits Expert Report with Invoices for Attorneys’ Fees & Cost for around 8 million totalu/same-difference-ave

❌🫯‼️🔥 Lawyeredup1 - Blake Lively Filed Motion Seeking Around $8 Million in Attorneys' Fees and Costs

🔥💥‼️🚒 Notactuallygolden - Over $7.5 Million for ONE Defamation Claim?: This Fee Request Is Embarrassing

📰👀🧠 Notactuallygolden - Banking on People Reading the Headlines, Not the Court Filings: Why the $7.5 Million Fee Request Is Designed for PR, Not Legal Strategy

📑 Questions the Reliability of Blake Lively's $8 Million Fee Summary (0:00–2:17)

• LGA examines the expert-created exhibit filed in support of Blake Lively's request for approximately $8 million in attorney's fees under §47.1.
• She explains that the document submitted to the court is not a copy of the actual invoices sent to Blake Lively. Instead, it is a summary using documents supplied by Lively's law firms.
• LGA notes that one of Lively's attorneys declared under penalty of perjury that Lively has paid and continues to pay the firm's invoices.
• However, LGA emphasizes that the underlying invoices themselves were never submitted alongside the motion.
• According to LGA, paid invoices are typically the strongest evidence of reasonable attorney's fees because they show what work was actually billed, when it was performed, and what the client was charged.
• The court is instead being asked to rely on a secondary document summarizing information that cannot independently be verified.

⚖️ Authentication and Hearsay Concerns (2:17–4:41)

• LGA argues that the expert's summary presents both authentication and evidentiary concerns.
• LGA explains that the expert can only testify that the expert received documents from the law firms and prepared a summary from them.
• In LGA's view, the expert cannot personally verify:
  • That the invoices the expert reviewed were authentic.
  • That they were complete.
  • That they were the same invoices actually sent to Blake Lively.
  • That the information in the summary perfectly reflects the underlying billing records.
• LGA believes this creates a potential hearsay problem because the court is being asked to accept the truth of information derived from documents that have not themselves been introduced into evidence.
• LGA stresses that there were several straightforward ways Lively's attorneys could have authenticated the original invoices through declarations or by attaching them directly to the filing.
• Because none of those methods were used, LGA says she believes the omission was intentional rather than accidental.
• LGA also argues that if the legal team truly wanted to maximize its chances of recovering millions of dollars, it would normally try to eliminate any questions about the authenticity of its supporting evidence.

🎨 LGA Uses an Art Authentication Analogy (3:18–4:41)

• To illustrate her point, LGA compares the situation to hiring an art expert to authenticate a painting without ever showing the court the original artwork.
• Instead, she says, the expert is effectively saying they reviewed something and concluded it was genuine, while everyone else is simply expected to trust that conclusion.
• LGA argues that because neither the court nor the opposing party can compare the summary against the original invoices, there is no way to independently verify its accuracy.
• LGA also emphasizes that this summary is not a contemporaneous business record because it was created after the invoices themselves and merely compiles information from other documents.

🔍 A Billing Entry Referencing "Perjury" Draws Attention (4:47–6:53)

• LGA discusses one billing entry reflecting legal research into perjury, specifically concerning the CRD complaint and potential perjury involving a state agency.
• She notes that the CRD complaint was prepared and signed under penalty of perjury by attorney Esra Hudson rather than Blake Lively herself.
• LGA says there are several possible explanations for why lawyers would research perjury, but she believes the entry indicates that someone involved viewed it as a legitimate issue requiring legal analysis.
• LGA speculates that the research could have related either to concerns involving statements made in the CRD complaint or to potential exposure affecting either the attorney or Blake Lively.
• While acknowledging that LGA cannot know the precise reason from the billing entry alone, she believes the research suggests the issue was significant enough to warrant legal attention.

💰 LGA Questions Whether Those Fees Belong in a §47.1 Award (6:53–7:37)

• LGA says lawyers absolutely research perjury when it becomes relevant to a case.
• However, she questions why the opposing side should be required to reimburse legal research that appears unrelated to defending against the dismissed defamation claim.
• §47.1 only authorizes fees connected to the successful defence of one specific claim.
• Including billing entries involving separate legal issues stretches well beyond the purpose of the statute.

📋 Other Billing Entries Raise Additional Concerns (7:37–End)

• LGA notes that the billing summary contains numerous references involving Leslie Sloane.
• She questions how work relating to Sloane could properly be shifted to the Wayfarer parties when Sloane herself is not covered by the attorney's fee award under §47.1.
• Because the court has only been provided with a summarized ledger instead of the original invoices, LGA says it is difficult to determine exactly what many billing entries actually relate to.
• LGA expects the Wayfarer parties to scrutinize each billing entry individually and object wherever they believe charges extend beyond work performed on Blake Lively's successful defense of the defamation claim.

This person has been submitting essays of pro Blake comments in the past year on several social media platforms including various instagram accounts. I think it was smart of that creator to pin their comments. 🤣🤣🤣

Do you think Taylor Swift's wedding guest makes sense? Is a thousand people too many? #juicyscoop #taylorswift #wedding #taylorandtravis #blakelively #justiceforjustinbaldoni

It wasn't enough for Blake Lively to weaponize and mischaracterize Natasha and Jamey Heath's post-birth video as porn; she also had the audacity to seek sanctions, demand production of ALL of the private footage--including footage that wasn't even on Jamey's phone--and then try to prevent him from testifying about it. And now, of course, is requesting payment for it.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1448/2/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/384718-willkie-farr-strikes-deal-with-trump-agrees-to-100m-in-services-ends-dei

Apparently, on February 17, 2025, attorney Vincent Biagiotti of Willkie Farr & Gallagher spent 8.3 hours researching case law related to "CRD Complaint perjury" and "perjury in statements made to state agencies."

Gotta protect their lying, manipulating, scheming client with their own lying, manipulating, scheming lawyer tactics.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1448/2/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

⚖️the Line Between Zealous Advocacy and Shamelessness (0:00–0:49)

• NAG observes that coverage of the Blake Lively litigation consistently draws more attention than many other legal topics she discusses.
• Much of that engagement is driven by viewers who are frustrated by how the case has unfolded.
• Many people are looking for reassurance that their concerns about the litigation are not unfounded.
• She says that, as lawyers, she and others have repeatedly commented that some of the litigation tactics being used fall outside what they personally would consider appropriate professional advocacy.

⚖️ Zealous Advocacy vs. Shamelessness (0:49–1:57)

• NAG explains that lawyers have an ethical duty to advocate zealously for their clients.
• However, she believes there is a line separating vigorous representation from conduct she considers shameless.
• She acknowledges that where that line falls may differ from one lawyer to another depending on the circumstances.

📄 Why NAG Believes Blake Lively’s Case Crosses That Line (1:57–2:49)

• NAG argues that the conduct of Blake Lively's attorneys has moved beyond zealous advocacy.
• She points to claims that courts have rejected or that were later voluntarily dismissed before reaching a jury.
• Despite those outcomes, the legal team continues to present Blake Lively publicly as though she achieved broad success in the litigation.
• She believes that continuing to advance positions she views as unsupported by the court's rulings makes the conduct difficult to justify.

🚫 "It's Not Zealous Advocacy to Ask for Things You're Not Entitled To" (2:49–3:35)

• NAG distinguishes between pushing legal arguments to their limits and seeking relief that she believes the law does not authorize.
• She says lawyers may reasonably ask courts to extend existing law or interpret statutes broadly.
• However, in her opinion, requesting relief that exceeds what the court has already authorized crosses an ethical line.
• She believes it is now the Wayfarer parties' responsibility to demonstrate those concerns to Judge Liman as the attorney's fee dispute continues.

💬 NAG Says Viewers Aren't Alone in Feeling This Way (3:35–End)

• NAG acknowledges that the litigation has produced developments unlike anything she has personally experienced during her legal career.
• She emphasizes that she cannot predict how Judge Liman will ultimately rule.
• Nevertheless, she wants viewers who feel uncomfortable with the litigation tactics to know that, from her perspective, those concerns are valid.

Extortion, harassment, defamation, libel, slander, emotional terrorism...its all abuse. But judge Liman called it Hard Bargaining. He didn't let Wayfarer prove it. He didn't allow them to even enter discovery. Worship him all you want, but I do not trust him to make good decisions. It turns out that Wayfarer could have proven malice.

Oh dear Emily and Justin!

Your very presence is a thorn in the side of those who can't bear to see goodness shine. Your beautiful presence and the way you move through the world keep exposing those who thrive in darkness.

Please continue being a shining light in this dark world while others can't stop plotting and scheming against you. In the end, they only expose their own ugliness and desperation.

And thank you for being you, for living your life with joy and freedom, and, last but not least, for showing up in our feeds. Every public appearance feels like a wink to those of us who support you. A gentle reminder that you're rising above the noise, completely unbothered by the $8 million nonsense, and focused on what truly matters 🤍💙❤️

What can I say, today provided a lot of material 🤠

Meme summary part 1

Meme summary part 2

Meme summary part 3

Meme summary part 4

Meme summary part 5

📚 Relevant Content List:

🔥💰🤬🧨 Little Girl Attorney - $7.5 Million for ONE Defamation Claim? Where Are the Actual Invoices Supporting the $7.5 Million Fee Request?(Part 1) (Must watch)

🔥💰🤬🧨 Little Girl Attorney - The "Inextricably Intertwined" Fee Strategy: What's Really Included in the $8 Million Fee Request? (Part 2) (Must watch)

🧠💰🧮 Notactuallygolden - Is the $8 Million Fee Request a Negotiation Strategy? Three Things That Stood Out in the Expert Report

📍 Let's go over Blake Lively's attorney fees math, cause I'm hella confused AH u/Mysterio623

☄️🤯💵💰Little Girl Attorney - Initial Quick Reaction: $7.5 Million in Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Remember, Judge Liman Awarded Fees and Costs for Only ONE Claim

📍 Lively files for 7.49 million in Attorneys’ Fees & Cost u/same-difference-ave

📍 Lively submits Expert Report with Invoices for Attorneys’ Fees & Cost for around 8 million totalu/same-difference-ave

❌🫯‼️🔥 Lawyeredup1 - Blake Lively Filed Motion Seeking Around $8 Million in Attorneys' Fees and Costs

🔥💥‼️🚒 Notactuallygolden - Over $7.5 Million for ONE Defamation Claim?: This Fee Request Is Embarrassing

📰👀🧠 Notactuallygolden - Banking on People Reading the Headlines, Not the Court Filings: Why the $7.5 Million Fee Request Is Designed for PR, Not Legal Strategy

💰 NAG Thinks the $8 Million Request Is a Negotiation Strategy (0:00–2:34)

• After reviewing the expert report and supporting attachments, NAG highlights a summary table attached to the expert's declaration, which separates the requested fees into:
  • Fees related solely to defending the Wayfarer action.
  • Fees allegedly shared between the Wayfarer action and Blake Lively's own lawsuit.
  • Litigation costs.
• This breakdown reveals what NAG believes is the real strategy behind the request.
• She theorizes that Lively's attorneys intentionally asked for the broadest possible recovery, expecting that the judge may reject the larger portion while leaving a multi-million-dollar award that can still be presented as a significant victory.
• NAG compares the approach to a common negotiation tactic: asking for more than you realistically expect to receive so that a smaller amount later appears reasonable.

👩‍💼 NAG Questions the Scope of the Expert's Opinion (2:34–4:59)

• NAG next focuses on the declaration submitted by the fee expert.
• While she does not challenge the expert's professional qualifications, she notes that, in her own 25 years of practice, she has never seen a fee declaration of this type prepared by a non-lawyer.
• The expert repeatedly concludes that Blake Lively incurred reasonable fees in relation to her overall defense, rather than limiting the opinion to the dismissed defamation claim.
• NAG argues this distinction is significant because Judge Liman's ruling concerned only fees recoverable for defending against the dismissed defamation action.
• In her view, if the court limits recovery to that narrow category—as she expects—it may not actually have an expert opinion addressing whether that specific subset of fees is reasonable.
• She believes the expert opinion therefore may not fully answer the precise question currently before the court.

🧾 Why NAG Thinks the Billing Records Raise Authentication Questions (4:59–5:59)

• NAG points out that the filing still does not include the original billing invoices.
• Instead, it relies on a newly created spreadsheet compiling selected billing entries from the invoices.
• She says she has not previously encountered this approach in a fee application.
• Because the original invoices are absent, neither the court nor the public can independently verify whether the summarized entries accurately reflect the underlying records.
• She raises the possibility that descriptions or time entries may have been modified or abbreviated when preparing the new document - MAYBE
• NAG believes this creates what she describes as an authentication issue that the Wayfarer parties may raise in their response.

📋 Billing Entries Should Be Detailed Enough for the Client (5:59–7:37)

• Drawing on her experience teaching paralegals how to record billable time, NAG explains that billing entries should contain enough detail for a client to understand exactly what work was performed.
• She argues that vague descriptions make it difficult for clients to evaluate whether charges are reasonable.
• Looking through the billing summaries, she notes repeated entries using generic descriptions such as "attention to" without explaining the underlying task.
• She suspects that the original invoices may have contained more complete descriptions before being summarized into the spreadsheet, although she says she cannot verify that because the originals were not produced.

⚖️ NAG Expects Judge Liman to Carefully Review the Filing (7:37–End)

• NAG reiterates that she believes the underlying legal arguments remain unpersuasive.
• She notes that judges technically have the authority to reject requests outright before the opposing side responds, although she says that rarely happens in practice.
• Instead, she expects Judge Liman to wait for the Wayfarer parties' response before making a decision.
• NAG also speculates that one objective of the large fee submission may be to overwhelm the court with volume, making it easier to award a compromise amount rather than scrutinize every billing entry.
• However, she questions whether that strategy will succeed, observing that Judge Liman has developed a reputation for being both thorough and meticulous.

Audacity is literally her middle name!

📚 Relevant Content List:

📍 Let's go over Blake Lively's attorney fees math, cause I'm hella confused AH u/Mysterio623

☄️🤯💵💰Little Girl Attorney - Initial Quick Reaction: $7.5 Million in Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Remember, Judge Liman Awarded Fees and Costs for Only ONE Claim

📍 Lively files for 7.49 million in Attorneys’ Fees & Cost u/same-difference-ave

📍 Lively submits Expert Report with Invoices for Attorneys’ Fees & Cost for around 8 million totalu/same-difference-ave

❌🫯‼️🔥 Lawyeredup1 - Blake Lively Filed Motion Seeking Around $8 Million in Attorneys' Fees and Costs

🔥💥‼️🚒 Notactuallygolden - Over $7.5 Million for ONE Defamation Claim?: This Fee Request Is Embarrassing

🔥💰🤬🧨 Little Girl Attorney - $7.5 Million for ONE Defamation Claim? Where Are the Actual Invoices Supporting the $7.5 Million Fee Request?(Part 1)

🔥💰🤬🧨 Little Girl Attorney - The "Inextricably Intertwined" Fee Strategy: What's Really Included in the $8 Million Fee Request? (Part 2)

-----------------------------------------------------------

💰 Blake Lively’s $7.5 Million Fee Request Is “Embarrassing” (0:01–1:25)

• Blake Lively’s request for $7.5 million in attorney’s fees and $500,000 in litigation costs is embarrassing.
• The fee application attempts to recover far more than Judge Liman authorized under his §47.1 ruling.
• The filing is not simply asking the court to calculate reasonable fees; it is attempting to revisit and expand the scope of the court's original order.
• This request is asking Judge Liman to reconsider his earlier decision by treating the entire litigation as compensable rather than limiting recovery to the dismissed defamation claim.
• NAG says that, from her perspective as a lawyer, it is professionally uncomfortable to file arguments that she believes directly contradict the plain language of both the statute and the judge's own ruling.

📖the Statute Supports a Narrow Fee Award (1:25–3:57)

• NAG focuses on the wording of California Civil Code §47.1, emphasizing that it applies to a prevailing defendant in a defamation action.
• NAG says that Lively's filing instead interprets the statute of 47.1 as allowing recovery for virtually the entire litigation because the lawsuits eventually became consolidated.
• Lively's application of 47.1 seeks reimbursement for work extending well beyond defending the dismissed defamation claim.
• Blake Lively specifically questions efforts to recover fees for:
  • Discovery conducted throughout the litigation.
  • Work involving Ryan Reynolds' separate claims.
  • Broader litigation strategy unrelated to the dismissed defamation count.
• NAG argues that discovery work is particularly difficult to justify because the defamation claims were dismissed at the pleading stage, before discovery relating to those claims became relevant.
• In NAG's view, consolidation of the cases does not automatically convert unrelated legal work into recoverable attorney's fees under §47.1.

⚖️ Client Strategy and Litigation Tactics (3:57–5:32)

• NAG believes the fee application reflects a client-driven effort to recover substantially more than the court actually awarded.
• The filing attempts to recast broad litigation activity as work that was necessary to defend against the defamation claims.
• Many of the arguments return to familiar themes involving Steve Sarowitz, Bryan Freedman, and allegations about aggressive litigation tactics.
• While those issues may have been important to the overall litigation, they do not necessarily expand the limited attorney's fee award authorized under §47.1.
• NAG also points to the filing's description of numerous litigation teams—including fact discovery, third-party discovery, and expert teams—as evidence of how expansive the case became.
• This level of staffing is unusual for a typical employment discrimination case and believes the litigation evolved into something much broader than its original claims.

📑 What Caught NAG’s Attention in the Declarations (5:32–7:15)

• NAG carefully compares the declarations submitted by Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb in support of the fee request.
• NAG notices subtle but potentially meaningful differences in how each attorney describes payment of legal bills.
• According to the declarations:
  • One declaration states that Blake Lively has paid and continues to pay the Manatt's invoices.
  • Another states that invoices from Willkie Farr relating to the defence of Wayfarer's action have been paid in full.
• She says those differences immediately caught her attention because the language is not identical and could become relevant if questions arise about billing arrangements.
• NAG notes that rumors have circulated regarding potential fee disputes between Blake Lively and Willkie Farr might be true.
• She also observes that the hourly billing rates disclosed in the filing are generally consistent with what she expected from senior attorneys practicing at major New York and Los Angeles law firms.

🧾 Where Are the Actual Invoices? (7:15–8:22)

• NAG says the most surprising aspect of the filing is the absence of the original billing invoices.
• Instead of attaching the invoices themselves, the application relies on a newly created summary compiling billing entries prepared for purposes of the fee request.
• She questions whether such a compilation provides the same evidentiary value as the underlying invoices themselves.
• In NAG's experience, courts commonly review the original billing records when evaluating attorney's fee applications.
• NAG says she wants to examine the expert declaration more closely before reaching a final opinion but finds the omission unusual.
• NAG also wonders whether the Wayfarer parties may challenge the sufficiency of the supporting documentation.

🏛️ The Judge Will Decide What Is Actually Reasonable (8:22–End)

• NAG emphasizes that the ultimate question before Judge Liman is not how much Lively's attorneys requested, but what amount is legally reasonable under the court's prior ruling.
• She believes the current application seeks reimbursement for work extending well beyond the dismissed defamation claim.
• NAG expects the Wayfarer parties to repeatedly point back to Judge Liman's order, which consistently limited recoverable fees to the defense of the defamation action.
• NAG also anticipates disputes over whether the supporting billing documentation adequately proves the requested amounts.
• The judge must now determine not only whether the hours and rates are reasonable, but also whether the work itself falls within the narrow category of fees authorized under §47.1.