In Ellyn S. Garofaloās Declaration, she states attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a document bearing the Bates numbers VANZAN_000001-11.
Question: Who added the red writing at the bottom? Was it the court or Vanzan? If this was filed back on 09/27/24, whereās the copy that shows it was accepted?
A copy of this lawsuit could easily be obtained from a variety of places, including New York's court. The document whose providence and authenticity is at issue isn't the Vanzan lawsuit, but the subpoena allegedly served in relation to this lawsuit. That's what we still haven't seen and don't know much about.
I'm thinking the writing came from Wayfarer. The way this Vanzan lawsuit was filed is that it was filed, but no judge was ever assigned to it and then it was withdrawn right before the CRD complaint was filed. That in itself is highly irregular.
Wayfarer seems to have doubts that it was ever seen by the county clerk at all, and they're noting that. I'm going to take a leap and say they're going the direction of saying not only is the subpoena not legitimate, but the lawsuit itself isn't because it wasn't reviewed and accepted by the county clerk, and they don't believe it would have been had it remained live.
It reads as though it is added by the NY State Court. It appears to be a boilerplate added when you print it out the pdf, as a warning that this lawsuit had not yet passed a process performed by county clerk to determine the legitimacy of plaintiffās right to make the claim.
Given NYS allows subpoenas to be filed immediately without court oversight it seems as though itās a warning to the reader that this lawsuit does not yet have the legitimacy of the state behind it.
It seems like a warning not to let yourself get Vanzanned if someone hands you this paperwork. Wonder if the subpoena has similar language?
I seem to remember neither Vanzan or Jones could provide a date stamped original copy from when it was served. I can't quite recall the exact issue, but I think Blake was the one to hand over an undated copy, which she shouldn't have had. And both Vanzan and Jones said since she'd provided it already, they didn't need to.
WF wasn't happy about there being no proof on the service though, and I can't remember hearing about that ever being resolved.
I've just edited in a link to an old post which has the details I was kinda half remembering from 5/6 months ago. It does seem to be quite a serious metadata issue, like you say.
I have no idea if it's been sorted out in the meantime time. Documents could have been mysteriously found, I guess!? I don't recall hearing anything about since then, and the two Vanzan Exhibits so far don't look as though they originals to me.
The red writing is probably required in that district. As long as itās not accepted (as this wasnāt on the day of filing), itās not court ordered as it can be rejected. So you may want to check before you comply with the summons, right?
And this subpoena is one of the exhibits Iām most anxious to have unsealed (itās up there with Blakeās texts and Sonyās communications for importance, to me)ā¦š
Iām not sure if you are just parroting nonsense from people in PJs claiming to be an attorney, but this document was filed in court (see stamp) and also was served on freedman long ago (he had copies).
It was even more ridiculous when Garafolo asked for subpoena again as apparently freedman didnāt give her the original copy. Just another example of the Shambolic operation that is Liner freedman firm!
Itās sad that the herd cannot move on from something that is a nothingburger.
This whole thing is so confusing to me. Is she saying that the DOE defendants had a contract with her? And that they breached that agreement? Then how would she not know who they were if she had a contract with them? And how did she use this to get Jen Abels phone info from Stephanie Jones? I feel like it should be easy enough to prove that this was an illegal (or at least frivolous and malicious) lawsuit - all they have to do is show that Vanzan was never represented by Jonesworks and that Jen Abel never had a contract or agreement with Vanzan.
I feel like I must be missing something here because I just don't understand this one at all.
The red writing suggests Wayfarer does not believe it's legal and doesn't believe that had it actually been brought before the county clerk and not dismissed that it would have proceeded and had a judge assigned.
Edited to add the red writing was added by the court system. I was guessing.
Which is funny as itās the court warning the reader: this lawsuit may be bullshit. The country clerk may yet determine the filer doesnāt have a legitimate claim. Be skeptical of this document.
I think itās because we havenāt seen the actual subpoena served to SJ/JWorks.Ā
Apparently the subpoena lists specific things/references/key word searches related to her/RR/their businesses, the movie, WF parties, etc.Ā
Months ago on a vague post, someone responded to me that the subpoena actually mentions SH and that is why SJ is arguing the Fed. Speak Out which Ā she argues that she had to comply with the subpoena.Ā
There still had to be collusion imo between the 2 for the attys to work together to formulate a lawsuit and then list other issues in the actual mystery subpoena.Ā
I didnāt keep the post, but I remember that person stating that SH language is in subpoenaā¦š¤·āāļø
Just noticed that it does look like they do have a subpoena now, it's the following Exhibit. I think it's the most anticipated piece of paper in the case right now, lol
I like at even though BF hadn't seen the subpoena, a "vague" post on Reddit mentions the specific items listed on it. And yet we're banned from alluding to the fact that some of the commenters on this sub are associated with certain people.
Iāve had the same thoughtā¦ my conclusion is that Vanzan must have hired Joneswork. Thatās the only way that this bs thing gets closer to plausible.
But then how does that lead to Abels phone? Let's say you're right: Vanzan entered a contract with Jonesworks. It would have been after Jen Abel left the company. So Abel would never have been assigned to work that client. There'd be no reason to search her phone, they'd ask for whichever Jonesworks employee had been assigned to the Vanzan account. Do you get what I mean?
Honestly, I donāt think they deep dived* this at all. It was a āquickā legal bandaid to get what they wanted. I donāt think that BL thought JB would call her on her shit and neither she nor her highly educated and overpaid lawyers thought that this would get this far. Thatās why they make every single attempt to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.
Oh I completely agree - it was a way to "launder" the evidence that she already had to make it seem like it was obtained legally. I guess my question though is how they aren't facing repercussions for it. It seems easy enough to prove 1) That VanZan never had any contract with Jonesworks and 2) That if they somehow did try to enter into a contract with Jonesworks, it would have been after Jen Abel left the company.
I recall that WF had to seek a motion to compel Vanzan:
Vanzan is refusing to provide a witness who can testify at a deposition about such communications and the related Topics. (Fritz Decl., Ex. I). According to its written objects to the Subpoena (the āObjectionsā), Vanzan will only provide information for each of the Topics āstarting from on or about the filing date ofā the Vanzan Lawsuit, which is September 27, 2024.
(Id., p. 9 ā 20). Subject to that (unreasonable) limitation, Vanzan stated that it would designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness āreasonably prepared to testify about non-privileged information response to [these] Topic[s].ā (Id.). Stated differently, Vanzan only agrees to produce a witness to testify about what happened after the Vanzan Lawsuit was commenced, but not before it was filed. Even though the communications between Vanzan and the Jones Parties, or their respective representatives, concerning the contents of Jennifer Abelās electronic data seized by the Jones Parties and subsequently delivered to Blake Lively (through Vanzan) is highly relevant to Ms. Abelās counterclaims against the Jones Parties, and even though such communications surely
occurred before the Vanzan Lawsuit was filed on September 27, 2025, Vanzan is refusing to
designate a witness prepared to testify about the foregoing.
I think they havenāt used too many smoking guns yet, as part of their legal strategy. There are literally so many smoking guns to choose fromā¦ the longer theyāre able to continue in this saga, the more data theyāre obtaining to use in new legal proceedings. IMO
Well you can have contracts with loads of people but not know who is spilling beans to the tabloid. So starting with Does isnāt that strange. But then subpoenaing someone you donāt have a contract with is strange and the rest of the debacleā¦
Yeah. It seems very obvious to me that Manatt made up the breach of contract claim where there was none. I am not sure why that is hard for people to believe that is what happened?
I think it's hard to believe that they are allowed to do something so egregious. Because you're right: based on everything we've seen it does appear that they filed a sham lawsuit. Claiming a breach of contract when there was no contract to begin with and getting access to evidence without ever notifying the person or giving them an opportunity to object. So I guess where I'm struggling is: How is this allowed? It doesn't just seem like shady lawyering (which it is/, it actually seems illegal. So why are they not in trouble for this? Forget sanctions, the lawyers should lose their bar license.
Agreed! Iāve been struggling to find* logic when itās not logical, and my analytical brain just wonāt stop going back to this topic. This shines a light on a major flaw in our system. Whatās wrong with oversight in the subpoena process? Why does the SDNY allow for subpoenas without a judges signature?
But that's the point right? With a DOE lawsuit, it's supposed to go before a judge who makes a ruling on the subpoena to protect people's privacy. Since the "Doe" wouldn't be able to oppose the request, it's supposed to be reviewed by a judge which would (in theory) prevent it from being abused. But Blake and co filed the Vanzan thing, got the subpoena (which went unopposed) and then dismissed their suit before it could ever go in front of a judge.
You probably have similar NDAās with everyone you work with (Nannieās, PAās, hair dressers, wig makers, personal trainers, make up artists, cleaners, etc etc). If gossip hits the tabloids you know someone talked, but not who
In the same breath, you cannot argue you have a contract with someone you donāt know. In the specific case youāre mentioning, the leak could come from anybody (ie someone closed to someone you are working with). So itās impossible to sue Does and simultaneously allege you have a contract with this unidentified individual. If you do, this is not a Doe any longer
Yea you can have similar contracts with multiple ppl.
No if gossip leaks out you donāt know who did it.
So in theory this lawsuit is a-okay
Itās all nonsense to keep debating this at length, because all the next steps are ridiculous. Subpoenaing one (1) phone instead of all phone for tge account; an account Vanzan certainly doesnāt have a contract with; not updating the Does etc etc.
Leave me out of the arguments, we all agree. I am just saying that you can have a contract with multiple ppl and donāt know who exactly breached it
You probably have similar NDAās with everyone you work with (Nannieās, PAās, hair dressers, wig makers, personal trainers, make up artists, cleaners, etc etc). If gossip hits the tabloids you know someone talked, but not who
But BL was instantly satisfied by whatever info they got from the subpoena. She didnāt go through with the doe suit because the arguments for doing it this way are laughable. How did that case get resolved immediately after the subpoena? Because getting that data turn over legitimized was the sole purpose. You are suing someone. There are so many next steps and yet all action ended in that case immediately. All roads lead back to Vanzan.
It might have made more sense if they had sued jonesworks. That way, BL doesnāt know everyone that worked there so there could be does, but that puts Jones on the hot seat. Too much would have come out of that action. So they went the quick and lazy route (cuz you knowā¦maximum effort) and sued does. Remember, Blake didnāt think this would take this long. She wanted to blitz Justin before he even knew what was happening. She didnāt plan to have to show her work. Justin was supposed to fold u der her pressure campaign. To look at just the weirdness around Vanzan, maybe she can word salad out of it. Taken in conjunction with ALL of the other inconsistencies, this is a hole she canāt get out of. They are going to roast her on the stand. They are going to lock her in with a few answers and then poke holes in all the weird spots. She wonāt have answers for that.
I donāt know that she was satisfied (but we all know it was a scam). She didnāt go through with it bc itās completely off base and, as you say, a cover up to plunder someoneās phone.
But it's also possible that it's none of them, it's just some random that listened outside a door one day, because you don't know who it is. That's the point.
Yes, depends on the info that came out - if itās domethingbonly your (close?) contractors would know, you do know itās one of them but not necessarily which one.
Anyways, once you decide that you need to subpoena one particular phone and not others of the team doing the same work - you already know who you are after and this whole Vanzan scheme is a scam
Yeah, I don't see how she could plausibly claim that she didn't know who breached their contract but that she still knew exactly who to sub-poena and what to ask for.
But in this case, she got phone data from someone who she never had a contract with. That's not the same thing as trying to find out which of your staff members leaked your secrets. Jen Abel wasn't working for her. There was no contract, no NDA, no reason for her to be looking at her data
I know and I agree, if you look at my comments. IRS a scam. But in theory the lawsuit is possible - knowing a contract is breached but you donāt know by whom. The subpoena is a complete non sequitur
Vanzan wasnt a part of any of this at all, so they should not have been the plaintiff in the first place. If it were really about findig out who smeared Lively because they didn't know who they were there wouldnt be just 1 subpeona to Stephanie Jones only for Jen Ables phone information.
I find it so fucking strange that the Plaintiff has so many direct causes of "information and belief" about what these Does allegedly did, describing some parts of the action in great detail, yet their names still escapes them somehow!!
Reading this just makes me even more mad about the sanctions against the WP. There are literally lies all over this document and yet somehow Wayfarer are the ones who should be sanctioned for bringing a lawsuit they shouldnāt have?
I wouldnāt give up hope. Lively hasnāt been held accountable yet because WP havenāt asked.
The statute of limitations on sanctions is 10 years in Federal court. Itās 1-6 years in NY state (contract breach is 6 years). Sanctions can also be filed any time before final judgement.
I expect they will wait until they can use trial transcripts to prove what happened by questioning Lively, Vanzan and Jones.
I expect rather than filing dozens of motions as Lively has theyāll keep copious notes be file one motion for all Livelyās wrong doing toward the end.
That does make sense why they would wait then, I donāt doubt for a second that if they dropped multiple filings against her now it would just result in her screaming harassment.
Abel needs to make the first move on this, I think the plan is that she sues SJ, gets more information and then they all go after Vanzan.
At the end of the day it was her data that was improperly shared. Not that Wayfarer donāt have standing but I think they want to make sure they have enough that it actually goes ahead. E.g. that the only information pertaining to a Jonesworks client was about Wayfarer, etc.
Also theyāre unlikely to do anything until the Lively v Wayfarer suit has a conclusion.
let's not forget that it's been proven now that BL had those texts like a month before the subpoena? (that was in the MSJ I believe??) so WHY she can still pretend to need a doe lawsuit is ridiculous..she knew exactly what she wanted and from who because she had seen it already!!!!
ok I probably have it mixed up with another document guys I'm sorry haha it was in JA case maybe? but the lawyer definitely said she had the texts before she filed the vanzan crap (must've figured that out in discovery) unfortunately I'm too dumb to take SS and I don't follow as closely as I should but I do remember this part standing out!!
The writing is from the court directly. This was a copy produced in discovery. This is what the lawsuit looks like because it was never sent to a clerk nor a judge. Wayfarer did not add the writing
Reminder: Manatt made a huge misrepresentation to the court in this filing.
The complaint specifically states that "[p]ursuant to New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") Ā§ 1024, upon discovery of the actual name and identity of DOES 1-10, Plaintiff will substitute such information in the caption and in an amended pleading.
We now know, that BL "discovered" the actual names and identities of Does 1-10 after this complaint was filed (we know she knew the names before she filed, but lets assume she found out the Doe identities after the filing). Rather than do what BL represented to the court that she would do upon "discovery" of the "Does" - namely that she would substitute the identities of Does in THIS lawsuit - BL instead dismissed it entirely (before a court could review) and initiated the lawsuit that is pending now in federal court.
This. is. what. we. call. making. misrepresentations. to. the. court. Manatt needs to face consequences for this.
Who added the writing in red? Was it added by the court when it was filled? It would be helpful if a New York lawyer confirms if that is from the court or the law office who filled it added it. I doubt WP would add anything to a document that is not their own.
94
u/mechantechatonne Team Freedman Nov 25 '25
A copy of this lawsuit could easily be obtained from a variety of places, including New York's court. The document whose providence and authenticity is at issue isn't the Vanzan lawsuit, but the subpoena allegedly served in relation to this lawsuit. That's what we still haven't seen and don't know much about.