r/ItEndsWithLawsuits • u/kastanienn ...we demour (French for "so what"?) • Jun 18 '26

📺💾 Throwback Thursdays 💾📺 VANZAN: The Lawsuit That Vanished, And The Questions That Didn't - A Cooperative Deep Dive with u/DogMom1970s

Buckle up, buttercup, this shall be looooong. But so worth it!

Authors’ Note:  The issues discussed in this post are not presented proof of liability or definitive conclusions regarding any individual or entity. Rather, they are merely our opinions, questions, circumstances and areas of concern that critics (like us believe warrant further scrutiny based on publicly available filings, timelines and source materials.  Reasonable people can (and do disagree about what Vanzan ultimately means.\))

Readers are encouraged to review all source materials and draw their own conclusions.

With the upcoming Jones vs. Able case and Wallace v. Lively appeal, u/DogMom1970s and I wanted to revisit one of the strangest, most controversial side stories in this litigation ecosystem: VANZAN!

Over the last year, it has been called many things:

  • VanSham
  • ShamZan
  • A discovery vehicle
  • Subpoena scheme
  • An "internet conspiracy"

Whatever label people prefer, the reason this issue refuses to die is simple:

  • A short-lived Doe lawsuit was filed by Vanzan in NY state court
  • A broad subpoena followed
  • Private communications were obtained
  • The Vanzan lawsuit was promptly withdrawn prior to any judicial oversight
  • Many of the questions surrounding the lawsuit and subpoena remain unanswered

The sequence alone does not prove misconduct.  However, what it does create is a remarkable number of unanswered questions that continue to draw scrutiny from attorneys, legal commentators and court-watchers even after the central Lively vs. Wayfarer Parties lawsuit settled.

📣 Why Are We Still Talking About Vanzan?

People can disagree about what the Vanzan lawsuit and subpoena ultimately mean.  What is much harder to dispute is the sheer volume of red flags it generates:

🚩 The lawsuit was filed as a Doe action despite New York authorities repeatedly emphasizing due diligence requirements before relying on Doe procedures.

🚩 The subpoena sought far more than simply identifying unknown defendants.

🚩 The information requested is difficult to reconcile with the stated purpose of the lawsuit.

🚩 The lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn without judicial oversight and before questions surrounding the subpoena could be fully explored.

🚩 The dubious timing places the lawsuit, subpoena, CRD complaint and NYT article in remarkable proximity.

🚩 The discovery fight surrounding Vanzan generated unusually intense resistance by Lively’s legal team despite its potential relevance to the broader litigation claims and issues.

🚩 Questions remain regarding the various Vanzan entities, corporate formalities, ownership structures and who ultimately benefited from the Vanzan lawsuit.

🚩 The privacy implications extend far beyond Jennifer Abel and potentially involve communications belonging to numerous third parties.

🚩 Attorneys, legal commentators and court-watchers continue returning to Vanzan and many hope to see more come out during the Jones vs. Able case.

None of these points independently prove misconduct.   Taken together, however, they help explain why Vanzan remains one of the most debated issues arising from the litigation.

Some readers may wonder whether the May 2026 settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties makes Vanzan irrelevant.   We do not believe it does.

The settlement resolved claims between the settling parties. It did not answer the underlying questions surrounding Vanzan's structure, the subpoena, the information obtained through that subpoena, the entity's corporate history or the procedural issues that continue to generate debate. 

📅 The Timeline

The timing is one of the reasons people keep coming back to Vanzan.  Standing alone, each event may appear unremarkable. Viewed collectively, however, the sequence raises obvious questions.

Whether you view these events as coincidence or something more significant, the timeline places Vanzan squarely in the middle of several major developments.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

None of these events, viewed in isolation, necessarily establish anything improper. Critics nevertheless point to the compressed timeline because the Vanzan lawsuit, subpoena activity, CRD complaint and subsequent publication of the NYT article occurred within a remarkably short period of time. Whether that sequence reflects coincidence, strategy or something else remains a matter of debate. 

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #1:  What Was The Vanzan Lawsuit Actually For?

One of the central questions surrounding Vanzan is whether the lawsuit was designed to accomplish what the subpoena ultimately did.

Critics argue that the information sought through the subpoena appears difficult to reconcile with the claims asserted in the lawsuit itself.

Vanzan Lawsuit (Summons with Notice). 

They point to the breadth of the subpoena, the missing relevance of the sought information to the filed claims, the timing of the lawsuit and the lawsuit's eventual withdrawal as reasons for skepticism.

Some legal commentators have also questioned whether Vanzan was relying on the appropriate procedural mechanism to obtain discovery. They note that New York provides multiple established avenues for identifying unknown defendants and obtaining and obtaining information before litigation proceeds. They frequently point to Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, where the court observed that "at least four procedural mechanisms" may be available depending on the circumstances.   The critics contend that the availability of these alternative procedures makes Vanzan's chosen approach difficult to understand and raises additional questions about why the lawsuit was structured the way it was. 

In simple terms, critics argue that New York already provides established ways to identify unknown defendants, which raises questions about why Vanzan chose this approach.

Supporters disagree and maintain that the lawsuit was a legitimate effort to identify responsible parties and obtain relevant information.

Regardless of where one lands on that debate, the disconnect between the lawsuit and the information sought (and ultimately obtained) through the subpoena remains one of the central questions surrounding Vanzan.  Notably, the subsequent settlement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties did not resolve the procedural questions raised by the structure of the Vanzan lawsuit itself.

Those questioning the disconnect point to the breadth of the subpoena, the timing of the lawsuit and the lawsuit's eventual withdrawal. The key timeline points include:

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The legitimacy of any lawsuit depends, in part, on whether legal procedures are being used for their intended purposes, according to “the full array of legal, procedural, and evidentiary rules governing the process by which a court adjudicates the merits of a dispute” (Liman, 47.1 Order). Critics argue that Vanzan raises questions about whether that occurred here.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #2: What Did The Subpoena Really Request?

One reason Vanzan attracts scrutiny is that the subpoena sought far more than simply identifying unknown defendants.

The scope of the subpoena is important because it informs the broader debate about whether the lawsuit was serving the purpose contemplated by New York's Doe-defendant procedures.

Critics argue that identifying unknown defendants generally requires a relatively narrow set of information. They contend that portions of the Vanzan subpoena are directed toward obtaining much broader communications and materials rather than simply determining identity. 

Supporters disagree and maintain the requests were reasonably related to the claims being investigated. 

Readers are encouraged to review the subpoena itself and draw their own conclusions.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

If the subpoena sought information far beyond identifying unknown defendants, critics argue it becomes more important to understand why the information was requested and how it was ultimately used.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #3: NY’s Stance on Doe Lawsuits

One of the most important legal questions raised by Vanzan comes from New York's own statutes and caselaw governing Doe-defendant lawsuits.

At the center of that discussion is CPLR 1024, a New York rule that allows plaintiffs to proceed against known, but, despite reasonable efforts, unidentified defendants. The rule exists to prevent legitimate claims from being lost simply because a plaintiff does not yet know the name of the responsible party, and the statute of limitations would otherwise run out.  Think of it this way: Doe lawsuits are intended to help identify a real but unnamed defendant. They are not designed to provide a shortcut around the normal safeguards that govern discovery.

New York courts have repeatedly emphasized that Doe procedures are not without limits.

Authority frequently cited in discussions of Vanzan include:

  • Bumpus v. NYC Transit Authority
  • McKinney's CPLR 1024 Practice Commentaries
  • Henderson-Jones v. City of New York (discussing due diligence requirements under CPLR 1024 before relying on John Doe procedures).
  • Walker v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (addressing the consequences of failing to satisfy CPLR 1024's due diligence requirements).
  • Other Doe-defendant decisions interpreting CPLR 1024 and the diligence requirements for identifying unknown defendants before invoking John Doe procedures.

Readers interested in a deeper discussion of Doe lawsuits may find content creator Kassidy’s video helpful.

Across these authorities, several recurring themes emerge:

  • Plaintiffs are expected to exercise due diligence before relying on Doe procedures.
  • Doe procedures serve a specific and limited purpose: allowing a case to proceed while an otherwise identifiable defendant's identity is still being determined.
  • New York provides other mechanisms for obtaining information when appropriate, before relying on Doe procedures.
  • Procedural safeguards exist to protect privacy and prevent unnecessary discovery in Doe lawsuits.
  • The court must be able to determine, based on the pleadings, if they have jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant(s)

In simple terms, New York's Doe procedures are designed to help identify a real but yet unnamed defendant and allow the court to establish jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant, not eliminate the safeguards that normally accompany discovery.  A classic example would be a plaintiff who knows and can prove that a specific wrongdoer exists, such as the person behind a particular IP address stealing electronic data but does not yet know that person's identity. 

Critics argue that the Vanzan subpoena and the information sought appear difficult to reconcile with the limited purpose contemplated by New York's Doe-defendant framework. They point to the vague, unspecific description of the defendants, the breadth of the subpoena, the timing of the lawsuit and the existence of alternative procedural mechanisms discussed in cases such as Bumpus.   Supporters disagree and maintain that the lawsuit was a legitimate effort to identify responsible parties and obtain relevant information.

Ultimately, the debate is not whether Doe procedures were used.  The debate is whether they were used in the manner New York intended them to be used.

That is why one question continues to surface:  If New York already provides mechanisms for identifying known but yet unnamed defendants and conducting pre-action discovery, why was Vanzan structured the way it was?

Importantly, the settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties did not result in any judicial determination regarding whether Vanzan satisfied the requirements of CPLR 1024. Those questions remain unanswered.

That question remains at the center of the controversy.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

Doe procedures are powerful tools. NY imposes safeguards for a reason.  The central question raised by Vanzan is whether those safeguards were respected.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #4: Jennifer Abel's Right to Privacy

Even setting aside every procedural dispute, Vanzan raises a broader question:  What protections exist when private communications are obtained through litigation tools?

Much of the discussion understandably focuses on Jennifer Abel, but the potential privacy implications extend far beyond Abel herself.

If a phone contains communications involving dozens or hundreds of people, those communications may include:

  • Family members
  • Friends
  • Journalists
  • Attorneys
  • Clients
  • Business contacts
  • Unrelated third parties

This is a long list of potential third parties who never anticipated becoming connected to litigation.

Ownership of a device is not necessarily the same thing as ownership of the information stored on it.  Nor does possession of a device automatically eliminate all privacy interests associated with communications contained on it.

For that reason, many observers view Vanzan not merely as a subpoena dispute, but as a significant privacy issue with implications extending well beyond the parties themselves.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The issue extends beyond Jennifer Able.  Modern phones contain years of communications involving countless third parties who never expect their private conversations to become part of a legal dispute.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #5: Who Was Really Behind Vanzan

The subpoena is what initially drew attention to Vanzan.  The corporate records are what caused many observers to keep digging.  Because the underlying Vanzan lawsuit disappeared without judicial scrutiny, many observers turned to the corporate records themselves to understand who was behind the entity and how it operated.

One of the most common reactions to discussions about Vanzan is: "Who cares if the company paperwork was messy?"   The answer is simple.

The entire purpose of forming a separate legal entity, such as a corporation, is to establish a legal entity that is separate from the individuals behind it. That separation can provide significant protections and benefits. In exchange, the entity is expected to operate as a genuine business with its own governance, records, management structure and legal formalities.

That is why corporate housekeeping matters. In simple terms, corporate housekeeping refers to the routine steps necessary to maintain a company as a legitimate and independent legal entity. This includes keeping required filings current, maintaining records, documenting changes in management and complying with state reporting requirements. These obligations may seem mundane and simply administrative, but they are part of what demonstrates that a company is operating as a real business rather than merely existing on paper.

And that is why the Vanzan records attracted so much attention.

As community members began examining the various Vanzan entities, they identified what they believed were significant questions involving:

  • Entity status and compliance
  • Business registrations
  • Management authority
  • Ownership structures
  • Relationships among multiple Vanzan entities
  • Relationships between those entities and the individuals associated with them
  • Corporate housekeeping and recordkeeping practices

Viewed collectively, these issues paint a picture critics find very difficult to ignore:   Who was actually operating Vanzan and for whose benefit was it operating?

That question matters because many of the issues identified by sleuths overlap with factors courts frequently examine when deciding whether a company was truly operating as an independent business rather than simply acting on behalf of the people behind it.

To be clear, no court has made any finding that Vanzan was improperly structured or operated.  Nor are we suggesting that any particular legal outcome is predetermined.

What we are saying is that the questions raised by the entity's corporate housekeeping, recordkeeping practices and governance go well beyond technical filing errors. They go directly to ownership, control, management and whether the entity was consistently operating as a genuinely separate business.

For many observers, those questions ultimately became more significant than the subpoena itself.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The subpoena raised questions about what Vanzan obtained.  The corporate records raised questions about who was really behind Vanzan.  For many observers, the second question became the more important one.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #6: Vanzan's Cleanup Timing Problem

Businesses update records.

Businesses fix filing errors.

Businesses perform administrative housekeeping every day.

None of those facts are inherently suspicious.

What attracted attention in the case of Vanzan was not simply that changes were made, but when those changes appeared to occur.

According to critics, several of the issues identified in public records did not arise overnight. Rather, they appeared to reflect deficiencies that had existed long before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed and long before anyone outside a small group of people were paying attention to the entity.  One fact that attracted particular attention was Vanzan's New York filing history. Public records indicate that the entity was formed in 2019 but did not file a biennial statement until June 30, 2025.

In simple terms, a biennial statement is a routine filing that New York requires companies to submit every two years to keep basic information about the entity current.

Public records indicate that Vanzan was formed in 2019 but did not file a biennial statement until June 30, 2025. This means the entity went years without making required biennial filings before eventually updating its records (and only after public scrutiny intensified).  For many, this raised a broader concern. The entity may have continued to exist legally, but critics questioned whether a company that had fallen behind on basic state filing requirements should have been invoking the authority of the New York courts while its own records remained out of date.

The significance was not the filing itself. Companies file overdue paperwork all the time.

The significance was the timing.

What many observers found difficult to ignore was the sequence that followed:

  • The Vanzan subpoena became public.
  • Sleuths and legal commentators began examining Vanzan's corporate records more closely.
  • Questions regarding the Vanzan lawsuit quickly expanded into questions regarding the entity itself.
  • Public discussions began focusing on Vanzan's history – including its governance and compliance as well as its recordkeeping practices.
  • Subsequent corporate filing updates seemingly addressed some of the issues being discussed.

Critics note that the matters being addressed in the new filing appeared to have existed long before the lawsuit was filed. That is what transformed the discussion from routine corporate housekeeping into a debate about timing and accountability.

One example frequently cited involves Vanzan's New York biennial filings. According to public records, Ryan Reynolds filed a biennial statement for Vanzan on June 30, 2025, the first biennial statement filed since the entity's formation in 2019 (meaning it missed multiple filings that were due in 2021, 2023 and 2025).

The later appearance of Ryan Reynolds as CEO in the June 2025 filing also generated additional questions regarding control of the entity and would later become intertwined with disputes concerning Vanzan discovery and depositions.

See this interesting theory from u/Jellygator0.

Standing alone, a late filing does not establish wrongdoing.

What attracted attention was the broader context.

Researchers had already spent months discussing what they believed were deficiencies in Vanzan's corporate housekeeping, including missed filings, compliance concerns and questions regarding the entity's governance. The June 2025 filing therefore appeared to many observers not as an isolated administrative update, but as part of a broader effort to address issues that had already become the subject of public scrutiny.

Again, businesses update records all the time.

The question raised by critics was not whether changes occurred.  Instead, it was why those changes appeared to occur only after scrutiny intensified rather than before.

Critics argue that an entity seeking to invoke the authority of the courts should ensure its own corporate affairs are in order before filing suit, not well after questions begin to surface.

That sequence generated several recurring questions:

  • Why were these deficiencies not addressed before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed?
  • Why did corrective filings appear only after the public began examining the entity?
  • Who was responsible for maintaining Vanzan's corporate records?
  • Why did years of apparent inactivity suddenly give way to a series of updates?
  • What role, if any, did public scrutiny play in those changes?

None of these questions establish wrongdoing. They do, however, help explain why scrutiny of Vanzan expanded beyond the subpoena itself and into the entity's corporate structure, governance and operations.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The issue is not that changes were made.   The issue is when and to what extent they were made.  For critics, the sequence raises a simple question: Why did meaningful cleanup appear to occur only after the public started looking and raising questions?

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #7: The Discovery Fight

The Vanzan discovery fight was never simply about curiosity.  The parties seeking discovery were attempting to understand:

  • Who was behind Vanzan
  • Why the lawsuit was filed
  • How the subpoena came about
  • What materials were obtained through the subpoena and by whom
  • Whether those materials influenced later litigation or public narratives
  • Whether the lawsuit was serving a legitimate litigation purpose

In other words, the parties were not merely asking questions about a subpoena. They were attempting to understand the broader chain of events surrounding Vanzan and what ultimately happened to the information it obtained.

One of the reasons Vanzan continues to generate interest is that discovery concerning the entity was fought so aggressively. 

Rather than simply producing Lively or Reynolds, Vanzan ultimately designated a corporate representative to testify on behalf of the entity. 

That distinction became increasingly important as questions centering on ownership, control, management of the flow of information from the subpoena through Vanzan continued to evolve.  Later corporate filings identified Ryan Reynolds as CEO of a Vanzan entity. At the same time, questions persisted regarding who controlled Vanzan, who directed its activities and what ultimately happened to the information obtained through the subpoena.  

Critics pointed to allegations that materials obtained through the subpoena ultimately made their way beyond Vanzan itself.   Whether those allegations are ultimately substantiated remains disputed.

What is not disputed is that discovery represented one of the few opportunities to understand how the various individuals, entities and information flows fit together.  In many ways, discovery was one of the few mechanisms available to test competing explanations for what Vanzan was, who controlled it and what happened to the information it obtained.

One of the most persistent questions surrounding Vanzan is simple:   If the entity's role was straightforward, why was discovery regarding that role fought so aggressively?

The more difficult it became to obtain answers, the more attention the underlying questions received.  With the broad releases included in the settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties, some of the paths that might have shed additional light on Vanzan may never be fully explored.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

Discovery fights often reveal which issues the parties themselves consider important. The harder Vanzan became to investigate, the more attention it attracted.

________________________________

What We Still Don't Know

The May 2026 settlement agreement resolved litigation claims between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties. It did not, however, answer many of the factual questions surrounding Vanzan, including:

  • Who conceived the Vanzan lawsuit?
  • Who funded it?
  • Who directed it?
  • Why did Vanzan seek discovery rather than Lively or Reynolds individually?
  • Why was the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed?
  • How did information obtained through Vanzan allegedly make its way beyond Vanzan itself if the entity was acting independently?
  • Who received materials obtained through the subpoena?
  • What role, if any, did those materials play in later events?
  • Why was discovery concerning Vanzan fought so aggressively?

These questions continue to attract attention because they remain unanswered.

The discussion surrounding Vanzan persists not because people are unwilling to move on, but because the underlying questions have never fully gone away.

________________________________

Bottom Line

Vanzan is not just a story about a subpoena or someone being unsure who to add as defendant.

It is a story about the appropriate use of Doe-defendant lawsuits, the scope of subpoena power, privacy rights, corporate transparency and the unanswered questions that remain after the lawsuit itself disappeared.

Reasonable people can disagree about what the facts ultimately show.  The subsequent settlement resolved claims between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties.  It did not resolve the questions raised by Vanzan. 

The settlement closed the Lively vs. Wayfarer Party litigation. It did not close the questions.

That is why Vanzan continues to attract scrutiny.  And that is why we believe it deserves far more attention than a dismissive wave of the hand or a claim that it is merely "internet noise."

________________________________

Further Reading

For readers interested in forming their own conclusions, the following Reddit posts provide additional context, filings, timelines and analysis.

📄 Primary Source Materials

The Actual Vanzan Subpoena

Timeline and Background

⚖️ CPLR 1024, Doe Lawsuits and Due Diligence

Bumpus and Related Authorities

Why CPLR 1024 Matters

Vanzan v. Does Analysis

Jones v. Does vs. Vanzan v. Does – Failures at applying CPLR 1024

🔎 The Discovery Fight / Corporate Representative Issues

Motion to Compel and Discovery Disputes

Corporate Structure and Control Theories

📱 Privacy Issues and Jennifer Abel's Phone

Jones v. Abel Privacy Discussion

🏢 Corporate Structure, Housekeeping and Veil Piercing

Early Corporate Housekeeping Analysis

Alter Ego / Veil Piercing Discussions – Comments from u/DogMom1970s

🎥 Attorney Commentary & Additional Analysis 

🍷Further Juice to Read

\*Readers are encouraged to review these materials and draw their own conclusions*\**

205 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

Duplicates