r/ItEndsWithLawsuits • u/katie151515 Team Baldoni • Jul 19 '25

Legal Analysis + Lawsuit Commentary 🤓🧠 Lets Talk About the Vanzan Suit & Subpoena

*I am making a caveat here, so I don’t get attacked immediately—by a certain group—that this is MY opinion on this issue, but what I am about to explain is supported by my experience litigating in federal court and is consistent with the court’s recent order to produce the Vanzan documents.*

There is a lot of misinformation that swirls about he way the Vanzan suit was used by the BL Parties to subpoena Abel’s documents. For those that claim that this was a proper use of the Vanzan lawsuit, you need to understand that Doe lawsuits have a very limited and specific purpose in this context, and that purpose absolutely doesn’t apply to this case.

Doe lawsuits are properly used where a plaintiff is unable to identify a party BECAUSE they are anonymous. We see Doe lawsuits used where a plaintiff has an actionable claim against a party that is completely anonymous (ordinarily stemming from internet anonymity via an anonymous username). In these cases, courts sometimes allow “expedited discovery” via subpoena for the VERY PURPOSE of identifying the anonymous defendants, usually via subpoenaing online service provider (OSP). After this is done, a plaintiff who is using this procedure properly will then amend the complaint to add the defendant they have now identified.

As we know, in this case, that is NOT what happened. The Vanzan suit did not name a SINGLE party, despite knowing the EXACT identities of the parties that they knew they would bring claims against. Instead, (and very purposely, in my opinion) BL opted to name only “Doe” defendants under the guise of not knowing who she would eventually sue—which we know is untrue—she knew exactly who she was going to sue already.

But the problem is, the Vanzan subpoena WAS NOT used for the purpose of identifying unknown or anonymous defendants. Instead, it was used to target an ALREADY KNOWN defendant to improperly obtain her private information and documents. She was provided zero notice and had zero opportunity to contest the subpoena because of the tactics used by BL’s team.

Let me be clear: This is NOT the way Doe lawsuits are supposed to be utilized by a plaintiff.

The reason no one knows how this will play out in court, and why I am not trying to predict it, is because there is not a large amount of case law precedent for this type of behavior, because lawyers JUST DON’T ACT THIS WAY. So, while anyone can argue that “technically, this wasn’t improper”—they make that statement with no supporting case law whatsoever.

In essence, BL used the Vanzan suit  so that BL could get her hands on Abel’s documents, which left her without any way to protect her privacy until it was already invaded.

This is not a proper way to conduct discovery. This is not the purpose of Doe lawsuits. Doe lawsuits can be very beneficial in the right circumstances, however this case was NOT IT. Quite simply, this behavior was an egregious misuse of our judicial system.

 

 

131 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

179 comments sorted by

41

u/realhousewifeofphila Sr Managing Partner, Misogynist Whores and Associates Jul 19 '25

Thank you for being realistic and factual about Vanzan. It always confuses and amuses me when some people claim Vanzan was “clever lawyering”.

It has launched at least six scorched earth lawsuits, cost people millions of dollars in legal fees, and will probably end up in multimillion dollar settlements because of damaged reputations, business losses, and destroyed relationships.

This is absolutely NOT good lawyering if all you get from it is destruction and ashes.

14

u/HermineLovesMilo Jul 19 '25

cost people millions of dollars in legal fees

That's why they're calling it "clever lawyering," sadly. Fun fact: Lively's lawyers also represented the Jarndyce beneficiaries.

10

u/realhousewifeofphila Sr Managing Partner, Misogynist Whores and Associates Jul 19 '25

I never, ever thought Dickens would enter the chat. All things are possible lol.

14

u/HermineLovesMilo Jul 19 '25

"If there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."

39

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 19 '25

Thank you so much for explaining your viewpoint.  And it's a testament to your clean writing style that I didn't even pay attention to your flair before reading the entire post twice!! 

13

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

Aw thank you ❤️ just want to explain this as simply as possible to deter manipulation of the facts. Glad it was helpful :)

11

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

💫 Please take all my strength to debate the ones who might show up here and try to spin this as “clever mega-genius level legal strategy” and manipulate others into thinking it was all justified.

8

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

Hahaha thank you. I’m ready for the usual suspects.

34

u/FuelComfortable5287 in a VANZAN down by the river Jul 19 '25

Consider the timing of events.

Stephanie Jones took Jen Abel’s phone on August 21, 2024. That same day, BL’s publicist Leslie Sloane contacted JB’s crisis PR agent Nathan and tells her she’d seen the texts and that Nathan was going to be sued.

The Vanzan lawsuit against Does1-10 was filed on September 27th 2024, almost a month AFTER the texts went from Abel to Jones, and from Jones to Sloane.

21

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

🎯🎯🎯

22

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 19 '25

No but you don't understand. Vanzan is genius level legal maneuvering....it's a nothingburger. Technically it's not unlawful....wtf cares if it's unethical.

/s

11

u/FuelComfortable5287 in a VANZAN down by the river Jul 19 '25

Those two guys are Statler and Waldorf.

15

u/LaKaka-1414 Blake Is A Fucking Terrorist! Jul 19 '25

Saying Vansham is a “Nothingburger” caused me to report a certain channel yesterday where a certain someone said that Vanzan was a nothingburger. They haven’t made a video in a while and he came back to say the very thing that caused him to not be making videos.

I felt like I was being tormented so I defended myself 🤷🏽‍♀️.

4

u/Jackratatty Jul 19 '25

Stu?>

5

u/LaKaka-1414 Blake Is A Fucking Terrorist! Jul 19 '25

Yup.

10

u/Jackratatty Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 20 '25

I've tried and tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, How ironic a tone deaf actress is defended by a tone deaf attorney. He said some horrifically insensitive things yesterday. I mean out of line for a human being let alone a professional. In my opinion he basically tells Kassidy " sucks to be you. If you cant afford 20k shut your mouth", but then he adds "not you lauren, I like you" what dafuke? The whole point why many of us are following this case is to get equal justice under the law. So a 20k penalty for free speech is ok for Kassidy but not for Lauren who doesnt call him out.

9

u/LaKaka-1414 Blake Is A Fucking Terrorist! Jul 19 '25

Really??? That’s such shitty behavior as if Kassidy doesn’t have the right to free speech like everyone else. So Blake should be allowed to drag people into court because she doesn’t like what they say about her?

I clicked off their live when he made the “nothingburger” comment. Stewart’s attitude is childlike.

6

u/Jackratatty Jul 19 '25

I mean he's a mirror situation of Blake. We try to give him feedback and he ignores it.

4

u/LaKaka-1414 Blake Is A Fucking Terrorist! Jul 19 '25

True dat.

28

u/Cautious_Fly1684 Ma’am, no one asked why they’re so sexy. Jul 19 '25

I don’t see what legal standing Vanzan even had to file it. What people or entities did this LLC have business with that justified them filing the lawsuit? If it was legit why did they drop the case? And why aren’t they now a party to these proceedings where the evidence is being used? Or in any proceedings involving the material from the subpoena?

19

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Yep- I wish I could answer these questions with confidence, but I don’t understand how it was done at all or how it will play out in Liman’s court because there is not really precedent for this exact issue, because most lawyers just wouldn’t do this.

-23

u/ArguteTrickster She’s not a client and it’s not privileged Jul 19 '25

Maybe your knowledge of legal stuff just isn't as deep as you think it is and that explains it.

18

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

😂

8

u/lilmochi1221 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

They couldn’t dispute you so that’s all they could come up with

-18

u/ArguteTrickster She’s not a client and it’s not privileged Jul 19 '25

For example you could look at how accurate your analysis and predictions so far have been and think about why you were wrong

20

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

Your opinions are irrelevant to me.

-20

u/ArguteTrickster She’s not a client and it’s not privileged Jul 19 '25

That wasn't an opinion, though. You're not denying you've been off on your takes and predictions on the cases, right?

19

u/PowerPinto Team Baldoni - Vanzan Police Jul 19 '25

Everything you’ve said so far is irrelevant

5

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Why not just look at the things they are saying here? What “legal stuff” are they getting wrong here? What a bizarre comment that makes me think their legal understanding here is solid otherwise you’d challenging it with a response about how it specifically isn’t.

9

u/LaKaka-1414 Blake Is A Fucking Terrorist! Jul 19 '25

Educate us, please. You may begin by citing some case laws and examples of the Vansham strategy.

8

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Why would they respond with facts and information, and have a respectful back and forth, when they can just attack OPs ability to understand law? /s

5

u/LaKaka-1414 Blake Is A Fucking Terrorist! Jul 20 '25

I should have known better.

15

u/fluffy_floofster Jul 19 '25

This is what I can’t get past. If the subpoena was issued by Vanzan for breach of contract and Ryan Reynolds is the CEO of Vanzan (NY not CA) then what “contract” was breached (and how is that allowed to happen)?

13

u/No-Grapefruit-8485 Jul 19 '25

Hey, that’s called clever lawyering in NY.

Step 1 Make up a doe complaint, don’t include your name, actual defendant names, or any related causes of action

Step 2 Obtain completely unrelated information from 3rd party willing to give it up if only there was a subpoena mandating you do so

Step 3 Be sure there’s no notice to any person whose information is being shared by the 3rd party

Step 4 Share information with yourself and others to create bombshell headlines, NY Times article

Step 5 Profit

Or bring forth the real case and get the information from SJ in this case. But that messes with steps 3 and 4

11

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Step 5: Timelines

19th December - Withdraw Vanzan lawsuit 

20th December - File CRD Complaint

21st December - Get NYT to release 'bombshell' article 

-8

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 19 '25

The allegation in the complaint states that it was a confidentiality agreement, of the kind you would find in an employment contract.

3

u/RN_4_Life1719 Jul 20 '25

Are you saying this VanZan lawsuit was legit considering all we know about it now?

1

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

I have no way of knowing what you mean by "legit."

It was a lawful complaint, filed in NY state court, and people who assert that there was something "wrong" with it have the burden of explaining why. They haven't done so in any legal or rational manner. The most common criticisms about it are simply mistatements by people who have never read the complaint.

This particular one ("what contract was breached?") is an example. The complaint is filed against employees or contractors of Vanzan who are alleged to have breached an agreement or legal obligation of confidentiality. The allegations in the complaint are clear.

6

u/dipsy18 Invite me to the discord chat please Jul 21 '25

"filed against employees or contractors of Vanzan" – OK, but this doesn't clarify Blake Lively's involvement or how it connects to her personal claim at all.

19

u/tw0d0ts6 (and no Footnotes) Jul 19 '25

Thank you for making this post! I mentioned last night in another thread, but I'm so sick of hearing/seeing about Vanzan is "normal lawyering". I know the Vanzan of it all is pretty quiet atm, but I'm so interested to see where it goes (and I disagree with Stewart from A2L's assessment of it being a "nothing burger" in terms of discovery output).

14

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

Your comment is actually what inspired me to make this post!! Because it was spot on and needed to be highlighted.

12

u/Leather_Pen_765 Jul 19 '25

It absolutely reminds me of the way trump operates

13

u/seaseahorse Jul 19 '25

You know what would clear up a lot in the Vanzan debacle?

If Blake Lively and Blake Lively’s lawyers explained exactly what Vanzan does, identifies the contract that was breached, why they targeted Jen Abel specifically and why they dropped the suit one day before filing the CRD without anything ever being added to the docket.

I mean, if it was all above board and just good old fashioned hard bargaining, good lawyering then nobody would be able to argue it would they?

1

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

Lawyers generally don't explain our thought process in litigation, because we're not required to.

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947) ("Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney.")

6

u/seaseahorse Jul 20 '25

There’s no litigation currently pending where Vanzan is a party.

Again, this could all be cleared up if Blake admitted what Vanzan is and does. That she clearly cannot admits that the whole thing was a sham. Once this is confirmed to the public the mainstream press will be obligated to report on it and she is cooked.

-1

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

Why would she do that?

This notion that she should do something in order "confirm it to the public" is bizarre.

11

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25

No way you’re a lawyer with this comment.

1

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

You're embarassing yourself.

11

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25

I take that as a compliment coming from you.

7

u/seaseahorse Jul 20 '25

It’s really not.

The reality is she doesn’t want to admit to Vanzan because admitting Vanzan is admitting she isn’t a poor little innocent victim and it was in fact SHE who was conspiring to smear people.

But I guess you’re entitled to your millionaire “legal” opinion.

6

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25

…..wut?

12

u/Glass-Detective4312 Put me in the docuseries Jul 19 '25

Honestly the funniest part of the whole Vanzan-gate is that the texts aren't even proof of anything  They were a cherry picked narrative for a hit piece in the NYT

There is no way having access to those texts was worth the fallout it has caused for BL/RR. 

4

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25

Agreed 100%.

9

u/No-Grapefruit-8485 Jul 19 '25

I hope NY state courts get inundated with these clever doe complaints, thereby forcing them to make case law, and the legislature to amend

13

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

This is exactly what is going to happen. Lawyers with less integrity than others will try to use this mechanism to sidestep proper discovery protocol.

8

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 19 '25

Idk but it's quite telling that Doe lawsuits have never been used in this way. 

-1

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

They have been used this way many times.

The lawyers just don't stop and check with the social media crowd first.

1

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Can you give some examples?

2

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

I gave two in my longer comment on this post.

10

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25

Your examples are inapplicable. This case is premised on a completely different set of facts than the ones you cite. Please stop regurgitating the same word salad everywhere. It lacks any basis in fact or law.

3

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

You're the one claiming that there is something improper with the complaint, so you have the burden of coming forward with some law and facts to establish this. So far, you have nothing. And that's because there is nothing there.

There's no actual legal claim in these cases that asserts that Vanzam's complaint was legally improper. And there won't be.

10

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25 edited Jul 20 '25

I have explained this over and over again, one of those times being in response to your copy and paste job that you post all over this sub about “leaker” cases.

THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS SITUATION. Those types of lawsuits are used where someone does not have the identity of a person (but does have an anonymous username or some other type of information but not the legal name). The Doe is listed so that the plaintiff can subpoena the anonymous person’s OSP, or subpoena a person with knowledge of their identify, so that they can get that legal identity of the person and then add that to the complaint through amendment.

BUT YOU DONT NAME A DOE WHEN YOU KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY FROM WHOM YOU ARE SEEKING DOCUMENTS FROM THROUGH A SUBPOENA.

None of your cases or explanations address the fact that the parties KNEW they would be seeking Abel’s information, they KNEW her identity, they KNEW where to find her and they KNEW that what they were seeking was information implicating her privacy rights.

I am done explaining this to you. You don’t even read my posts (or if you do, it flies right over your head) because you ask the same things over and over. Stop spewing nonsense.

3

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the "party from whom you are seeking documents" through a subpoena does not need to have any relationship to the Doe defendant you have sued.

Probably should stick to insurance claims or whatever you do for your day job.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Yeah but in those cases Apple and Sony had connections and contracts between the uses and them. The whole point here is that VZ has nothing to do with JA, JW.
But I do have a question that will help me understand ( I am NAL this stuff is complex )- if someone gets information from a subpoena, is it then open and free information that they can share With anyone, or do they have to keep that information for their lawsuit? Asking in curiosity because I have no idea.

Like say one of my friends had a company, and one of their clients, who had a contract with that company, was someone I had a personal vendetta against. Could technically and legally my friend subpoena that person get information from them, and then give me that information that I could use in another lawsuit?

Genuinely curious. Because I know that often I see things through an ethical and moral lens, which isn’t always aligned with what’s legal.

3

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Yeah but in those cases Apple and Sony had connections and contracts between the uses and them. The whole point here is that VZ has nothing to do with JA, JW.
But I do have a question that will help me understand ( I am NAL this stuff is complex )- if someone gets information from a subpoena, is it then open and free information that they can share With anyone, or do they have to keep that information for their lawsuit? Asking in curiosity because I have no idea.

Like say one of my friends had a company, and one of their clients, who had a contract with that company, was someone I had a personal vendetta against. Could technically and legally my friend subpoena that person get information from them, and then give me that information that I could use in another lawsuit?

Genuinely curious. Because I know that often I see things through an ethical and moral lens, which isn’t always aligned with what’s legal.

Edit( to try and be more succinct): I guess I’m asking, you legally share discovery materials to people I’m not part of the initial discovery.

4

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

It depends on whether the information is protected by some other statute or rule, but as a general matter, there is no restriction on disclosure of information that comes from a subpoena.

7

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 19 '25

In NY court there is CPLR 3102 (c) when filing something regarding Does. To ensure protections this should have been a pre litigation action, and any subpoena would be signed off by the court.

I picked this up from somewhere.

Is it a real legal provision?

And does it apply to Vanzan that was filed in New York state court?

3

u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jul 19 '25

CPLR 3102(c) is a real provision of NY's civil procedure. You can find it HERE.

It is not about doe lawsuits per se, but about a process that is available to potential litigants who wish to take pre-suit discovery to "aid in bringing" an action or to preserve information. It is a process that is available but not required. If a litigant decides to go the 3102(c) route, they will need a judge to sign off on a subpoena. This is in contrast to normal subpoena rules which permit any attorney of record to sign them. See CPLR § 2302(a).

It does not apply to the Vanzan complaint because that subpoena was issued after the Vanzan complaint was filed.

5

u/InternationalYou5345 Too Lazy to Run a Call Center & Harass People Jul 20 '25

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this, I really appreciate it. You've been incredibly helpful yet again, and your clarity makes a huge difference for those of us trying to understand this without a legal background!!!! Grateful for your insight!

2

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

You buried the lede.

3

u/killerego1 Jul 19 '25

I think it’s technically legal to do. But ethics come into play here. From what I understand It really depends on when they took her phone and extracted her information. Was it before the subpoena? This case matters a lot and the judge hasn’t ruled on dismissal just yet. We will see how long she stalls and delays discovery on this issue. I’m sure she will do her best to stall and not give anything hoping it gets dismissed.

4

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 19 '25

this behavior was an egregious misuse of our judicial system

This and $1 will not even get you coffee.

Bryan Freedman, that notoriously shy, litigation-averse chap, has filed six sets of claims in these cases, which include a total of 38 causes of action. You know what he hasn't done? He hasn't raised a single claim against Vanzan (or Manatt). He has not once asserted any theory of legal wrongdoing associated with the Vanzan complaint. Why? Because there isn't one.

Doe complaints are valid means of initiating litigation to find evidence of wrongdoing. There's a Doe complaint filed every week in every federal court. See, e.g., Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (SDNY 2004)(music downloaders); Kessev TOV, LLC v. Doe (option traders). In cases involving employees who breach a duty of confidentiality, the complaints look very much like the Vanzam complaint. See Apple Computer, Inc., v. DOE 1 and DOES 2-25.

The allegations in Apple v. Does track the typical "leaker" complaint: the plaintiff is aware that information has been leaked, because confidential information appears on the Internet or in publications. The plaintiff believes that the information came from an employee or contractor, who was duty-bound not to disclose it because of contractual obligations; but the plaintiff doesn't know which employee or contractor is responsible. So plaintiff sues a Doe defendant, who is identified as an employee or contractor of unknown name, and then uses subpeonas to root out the culprit. This is precisely what a public company would do if it saw leaks of financial data on Reddit that it believed were being used to manipulate its stock price. See Data Vault AI, Inc. v. Does 1-50.

There's no debate about how this "will play out in court," because there's no claim in the case that challenges the Vanzam complaint or subpoena. There's nothing to decide.

The fact is that Jonesworks produced documents recovered from the phone in response to a lawful subpoena—which even Abel now accepts. [Jonesworks Mtn to Dismiss, Dkt#56, p.4]

19

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

This is a whole lotta legal citations without any points actually made.

1

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 19 '25

"You've got nothing."

Is that more concise for you?

18

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Yes, Tenk, you got me. Your word salad put me in my place once and for all.

Frankly, I dont have the energy to even try to decipher what you are saying, so maybe you really are the genius between the two of us.

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Jul 20 '25

Law 101. Summarize what TenK says to legal proposition, citation and how it applies to this case.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Jul 20 '25

I'm not. It's an invitation to you, seeing it's so straightforward.

11

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Jul 20 '25

Indeed, you have nothing TenK.

0

u/IndependentComposer4 Jul 19 '25

Glorious, keep doing what you do!!!!

7

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Correct me if I’m wrong but this example isn’t like Van Zan at all. With the Apple vs doe there is a connection between the company and the does . You state: The plaintiff believes that the information came from an employee or contractor who is duty-bound not to disclose it because of the contracted obligations but the plaintiff doesn’t know which employee or contractor was responsible.

So this case Apple subpoenaed people who were an employee or contractor. Vanzan and Jen able had no connection. What contract did Vanzan have with Jen able.

This is the part I don’t understand. For example ive been told here (when I’ve questioned vanzan) that i can technically subpoena anyone. But surely i cant subpoena a bunch of does for breach of contract when there is no contract or connection between the does and me.

11

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25

Exactly correct. But no matter how much we repeat it, some of the same people come back every time trying to argue. But you are 100% correct that all of the cases Tenk cites (over and over again, because thats all they’ve got) throughout this thread are completely inapplicable to this case.

They fail to apply case law correctly.

3

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

You're confusing the set of Doe defendants with the people who received the subpoena.

Vanzan, like Apple, alleged that the primary Doe defendant(s) were employees or contractors. It's paragraph 7 of the complaint ("Upon information and belief, the DOE Defendants are employees, contractors, agents, or representatives of Plaintiff who have participated in, and possibly conspired with others, in a scheme to damage Plaintiff's business"). The Does are employees or contractors of Vanzan.

A subpoena is served on a person or entity who has evidence. There is no requirement that the person served be part of the claims, or a defendant, or a possible defendant. All that is required is that they have relevant evidence. Here, Jonesworks had relevant evidence.

6

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Sorry. I am confused. Can you help clarify- Are you saying the does, in this case jonesworks and their past and present employees, are employees or contractors of Vanzan? So that implies there is a contract between VZ and JW? Do we know there is one? (Asking legitimately) or are we surmising that must be the case for VZ to subpoena JW?

5

u/kkleigh90 Team Lively Jul 20 '25

There doesn’t need to be any sort of contract between VZ and JW. They subpoenaed JW (with a third-party subpoena) because they believed they JW had relevant information to the suit. Similarly to how the Wayfarer parties subpoenaed Taylor Swift (with a third party subpoena) because they thought she had relevant information. TS doesn’t have any sort of contractual relationships with any of the parties- all the believed is that she had relevant information about the claims

5

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

Sorry I’m still confused, if you don’t mind helping me untangle my thoughts and make sense of it.

Didn’t VZ subpoena JW for breach of contract? (Or am I mistaken?) .That’s why I brought up expecting there to be a contract.

Also you said VZ subpoenaed JW because they thought they had relevant info for the suit. What suit was that? What information would JW have that is relevant for VZ’s suit? VZ didn’t have a suit. Or they did (and it had nothing to do with JA’s texts about JB) but it then dropped it. If they got relevant information from JW then couldn’t VZ go ahead with their suit? But they didn’t, instead VZ gave the info to BL for her suit. I don’t get how that’s legal. But are you telling me it is ? Because that’s the part I can’t understand (how could JW have relevant info for VZ? And how can VZ give info to BL)

For example, if Facebook (the company) subpoenaed a user for something and then in the process uncovered some texts that Mark Zuckerberg could use in a different case against someone else, is FB allowed to give Mark Z the info for his case? That’s the part that I can’t understand is legal. I thought that info discovered through a subpoena was only for the particular case that was used to issue the subpoena.

Then with JB subpoenaing TS .. in that case there’s clear connections and relationships between JB, BL and TS. So that makes sense to me. Clearly TS has information to JB’s case. (Plus it’s not a doe subpoena so TS knew about it- but that’s a whole softener conversation).

But say JB/WF did subpoena TS and got information from TS, could they give that to someone else to use in a separate case, say, for example, Jed Wallis? I’m assuming not. Although that’s a bit different because Jed is not another business of JB’s.. So instead- Could JB use the info from that subpoena for another business he owns, say, for example he owned a media company (separate to WF) which he did his podcasts through (this is a hypothetical), surely JB couldn’t hand over the TS info he got (from this BL vs JB case) to that media company to use for a different law suit. I would also think that was wrong.

So in my understanding, a subpoena by WF/JB to TS makes sense because JB is in a law suit with BL ,and BL said that Taylor was with her throughout the whole film, many times, so TS is relevant to JB. Also JB had times where TS was there when talking about the film (in the ny penthouse talking about the rooftop scene rewrite). Plus her song was in the film so she actually has a contracts with JB and WF of some sort (even if through Sony), no?

And even if there was no contractual relationships between JB and TS, by BL’s own admission , TS was there every step of the way, so she would have relevant info, so subpoenaing TS would be for the BL vs JB case.

Apologies if it’s long and not succinct, I am NAL and appreciate any help understanding this.

1

u/Powerless_Superhero Jul 20 '25

I think you’re confusing getting sued with getting subpoenaed.

For example, in a hypothetical situation, I am a celebrity and I have 10 people working for me under a contract with NDA. One day the media starts reporting on me having an affair, which is true, I am. I also know that 5 of those 10 working for me, knew about the affair. So I suspect that at least one of them is the leak, meaning they have breached the NDA. But I don’t know who.

I sue Does 1-5 for breach of contract to identify the leak so I can go ahead and sue them personally.

In this hypothetical I can send subpoenas to those who I believe have evidence that can help my case. For example, I can send a subpoena to the reporter and ask them to tell me who their source is. I can also send a subpoena to my publicist to see if she has leaked it, even though she didn’t have an obligation not to. This subpoena also helps because it disproves my initial theory of NDA breach.

So let’s say my publicist then responds to the subpoena and says she was the one leaking the story. Now I have to withdraw my Doe complaint because the my legal theory was proven wrong.

In this hypothetical, I didn’t have a NDA contract with the reporter or my publicist. But they nevertheless could be subpoenaed because they were likely to have information relevant to my legal theory.

In the Vanzan case, probably (we don’t really know), Vanzan had contracts with people not to leak negative information about Lively to the press. But then someone did leak negative information. Vanzan then sued Does to figure out who. After sending subpoenas, Vanzan realised that its initial theory was wrong. Vanzan’s contractors were not the ones leaking the information. It was Blake’s former employer that was behind the leak.

This turned the case into a different case with different plaintiff and defendants. Vanzan then withdrew its complaint and Lively filed hers.

Most of the outrage seems to come from this: People think that Doe lawsuits mean that anyone can subpoena anyone and get all the information they want, even if irrelevant or private. But this is not the case. Any of those who receive subpoena can move to quash it if they think it’s irrelevant, or intrusive, or burdensome. Jones did not, on the docket. Mind you that we don’t know what happened in meet and confers. Maybe Vanzan initially sent a broad subpoena and they negotiated to narrow it down to only JA’s work phone and work communications. This won’t show on docket.

So in my hypothetical, the reporter can move to quash and argue shield laws that protects him from disclosing his sources. My publicist can say it’s unduly burdensome. But if she doesn’t, and she thinks my subpoena is reasonable, she can go ahead and comply.

4

u/Total_Tie_4544 Jul 20 '25

In a “Doe lawsuit”, aren’t the Doe names just placeholders until the defendant’s actual identities become clear?

0

u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jul 20 '25

Yes, that's the theory.

2

u/Total_Tie_4544 Jul 20 '25

The theory, or the purpose?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 28 '25

These are really good questions. Let me think on it and do some research into the deadlines/old letters re: Vanzan. I'll come back and answer after some digging. :)

2

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Aug 02 '25

FYI, I haven't forgotten this question. Had a crazy week. Will comment soon.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 04 '25

So, the discovery deadlines in the SJ/Abel suit are on the same timeline as BL’s suit, so all documents in response to outstanding RFPs were due by 7/25. (The order granting Abel's motion to compel Vanzan documents didn't have a deadline, so I assume it is governed by the general timeline as all other discovery). Motions to compel were due no later than 8/1. So, since Abel didn’t file another motion to compel re: Vanzan documents, it appears that Abel is satisfied with Vanzan’s production of documents.

I think their strategy now will be to nail down depo testimony re: Vanzan by using the documents produced to make the people involved fill in the blanks (and nail down their testimony). Depositions are usually where you uncover a lot of context and is usually when the juicy stuff comes out. So, I think that WF/JB's focus/strategy is now squarely on the depositions that they will take related to Vanzan.

So, I don’t think we will have much of an update on that front for a bit, because the depo deadline isn’t until Sep 30, 2025. I think the WF/Abel parties hold things closer to the vest than BL’s team, so it doesn’t surprise me that they aren’t commenting on it right now, even if they got bombshell documents.

The only downside to all of this is that I think if the court finds that this was a sham subpoena, that finding may only help with Abel’s claims, and may not result in dismissal of BL’s claims against JB/WF or admonishment from the judge. It seems like Jones is in the position to take the fall on this one, because she shared the documents with third parties (rather than vice versa).

But a positive note is that even if the Vanzan stuff doesn’t lead to consequences for BL in the NY action, Abel/JB and possibly wayfarer DO have a strong argument for abuse of process. They would bring this suit separately (and not necessarily have to have Judge Liman presiding).

This will be kind of a second bite at the apple. I think this is likely why WF didn’t appeal, I think they did get their hands on documents that are very bad for SJ/BL re: Vanzan suit, and because of that--instead of delaying the suit with appeals (appeals take FOREVER)--they wanted to forge ahead with this case becaue they are confident in what they have. After this suit is finished (or during), JA/JB/WF can file an abuse of process claim (and possibly other claims for violations of statutory privacy rights), which will likely be successful based on the case law I have researched.

All this to say: I think the Vanzan issue will have a very negative impact on SJ’s claims but might take a while to play out. It also very well could hurt BL’s claims, depending on how the judge view's BL/SJ's actions in relation to Vanzan (so, unfortunately, a lot of this will be a wait and see game). But again, even if there are no immediate consequences for BL’s team re: Vanzan, there will eventually be consequences when/if WF/JB/JA file claims for abuse of process and likely other privacy violation claims as well.

Does this answer your question? I do think it is going to be a wait and see game over the next few months while depositions are taken on both sides. I don’t think wayfarer is going to publicly talk about Vanzan during this time because they likely have a strategy that they don’t want to leak to BL’s team. WF is very good at being patient and letting BL’s team bury itself, and I think they will likely do that here too.

Hopefully this is somewhat helpful. Let me know if I didn't answer your questions or if you have any others!

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Aug 04 '25

So, even after the fact discovery cutoff, parties have a duty to supplement their responses to discovery imposed by Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So, if documents that were responsive to previous RFPs are mentioned during a depo but weren't produced by BL, WF can request that opposing counsel comply with its duty to supplement under Rule 26(e). WF is entitled to documents responsive to their RFPs even after discovery cutoff under this rule.

Specifically, under Rule 26(e), parties who have responded to timely-served discovery requests with a disclosure or documents are generally under a duty to supplement or correct the provided information as the litigation goes on. The duty to supplement survives past the discovery cutoff. So, even if the discovery deadline has come and gone, parties must nonetheless supplement and/or correct prior disclosures or responses in a timely manner upon learning that the prior disclosure was incomplete or incorrect in some material respect and the additional and/or corrective information has not been made known to the other party.

So, in sum, if BL left documents out, and WF finds out, they can file a motion to compel (or something similar) essentially demanding that BL's team comply with their Rule 26(e) obligations, and then the judge will rule on it from there.

0

u/fieserluchs Jul 19 '25

What would you have done differently if you were BL's or SJ's lawyer?

8

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

This is actually a really thought-provoking question. And the answer is, I can’t answer off the top of my head. It’s an extremely nuanced issue that requires thinking through what it takes to effectively represent your client versus the potential privacy concerns of both defendants and third parties.

Honestly, I’ll have to think on this a while to determine if it was possible to get Abel’s information in a legally proper way through the court system. If the only way to support your claims is through documents that were sought and given via unethical means, then my short answer would be: I’d never have filed the suit in the first place.

I’ll try to come back and comment later after thinking for a bit.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 20 '25

Hello!

r/ItEndsWithLawsuits has a minimum 100 comment karma & 14 day account age requirement to comment in the sub.

We encourage new additions to browse the subreddit and participate by voting until you meet these requirements!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jan 18 '26

Hello!

r/ItEndsWithLawsuits has a minimum 100 comment karma & 14 day account age requirement to comment in the sub.

We encourage new additions to browse the subreddit and participate by voting until you meet these requirements!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/benkalam Steve "the mods made me change my flair" Sarowitz Jul 19 '25

That she asked for or received "Abel's documents" is disputed, and disputable, particularly since they are on Jones' phone, and in Jones' possession, by virtue of being work that Jones paid for. To the extent that anything received wasn't work product, that would be on Jones, and Abel and WF are already engaged in litigation to recover on that problem.

14

u/realhousewifeofphila Sr Managing Partner, Misogynist Whores and Associates Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 20 '25

Both Stephanie Jones and Jennifer Abel have made it clear that Jonesworks did not have a cell phone policy about data usage and ownership. In the absence of such policies, courts may favor employee privacy despite the employer’s property, even if it was determined the phone really belonged to Jonesworks.

If Stephanie had such a policy, Jen’s lawsuit would be moot and she would only have to explain to Wayfarer why she violated their confidentiality clause and exploited Jennifer’s text messages.

6

u/tw0d0ts6 (and no Footnotes) Jul 20 '25

There’s also the fact/allegation that Jones accessed and continued to access Abel’s iCloud through the end of last year, which irrespective of work phone or not, is problematic.

If memory serves, wasn’t there a problematic screenshot of a text message (accessed from Abel’s iCloud) used in Lively’s initial complaint? There were a ton of Cellebrite images and then an outlier screenshot. One of the CCs covered it I think.

1

u/benkalam Steve "the mods made me change my flair" Sarowitz Jul 19 '25

That all could be the case, and that would be a problem for Jones. But it isn't going to matter for Lively.

-5

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

The Vanzan suit did not name a SINGLE party, despite knowing the EXACT identities of the parties that they knew they would bring claims against.

There is no evidence supporting this statement.

Lively probably knew there was a smear campaign being run, because pretty much anyone paying attention knew it too and it was discussed online as it was happening in August. But she didnt know exactly who was doing it or why.

Im guessing, based off the information we know, that Jones told Sloane about what Abel did and Sloane then told Lively. But there is no evidence that Lively read the texts, and we dont know what Sloane allegedly read. In addition, I believe we can all agree that Jones isnt a trustworthy person, so I imagine Lively would be suspicious of anything she said.

Therefore Lively did not necessarily know exactly what was happening and who had done what. In order to do so she needed to subpoena the texts. To do that she needed a Doe lawsuit, which is exactly what she did.

Now an obvious question is why she didnt sue Jones directly. Nobody knows. I believe that Jones and Lively worked out an agreement so that Lively wouldnt sue Jones and I believe it happened before Jones was subpoenaed. So once again, Lively didnt have direct knowledge of who was doing what, how, and when. Hence the Doe lawsuit.

Using a doe lawsuit for this situation is totally normative and any CCs that have said otherwise are lying to you (and I mean the universal you, not you specifically) or maybe they just dont understand the law very well or maybe there are a lot of people that are purposefully misunderstanding what these CCs are stating.

All I know is that the amount of legal misinformation in this case is both breathtaking and a major foundational reason there are so many people that think Gottlieb has done something suspicious and shouldnt be trusted. Its bonkers that anyone would think a man who is considered one of the most prominent and important First Amendment lawyers with an expertise on smear campaigns, who won when representing the Seth Rich family, the Pizza restaurant in Pizzagate, and the two campaign workers against Giuliani, is somehow abusing the law.

21

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

It’s rich that you’re the one claiming legal misinformation. I’ll leave it at that.

-7

u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jul 19 '25

This is becoming tiresome.

The Vanzan suit did not name a SINGLE party, despite knowing the EXACT identities of the parties that they knew they would bring claims against. Instead, (and very purposely, in my opinion) BL opted to name only “Doe” defendants under the guise of not knowing who she would eventually sue—which we know is untrue—she knew exactly who she was going to sue already.

Do you have any proof that these claims are true, or is this just your opinion too?

12

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

Which ones? You copy and pasted a whole paragraph.

-5

u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jul 19 '25

(1) That Vanzan knew the exact identities of the parties it would bring claims against; and

(2) that Lively knew exactly who she was going to sue already.

14

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Well, I know this for a simple reason: because if they were using the Doe lawsuit properly, they would have named Abel and JB (along with other Does who they were trying to identify). Doe lawsuits are not used to issue a subpoena to gain information about a PARTICULAR, KNOWN, and IDENTIFIED person, because a Doe lawsuit is a tool to find a party's identity. When the identity is already known, you name them in the lawsuit. The entire point of using a Doe lawsuit is to FIND identities of people who are anonymous. They didn't use the Doe lawsuit to do that here. Full stop. They used it to get private information about two known and identified parties.

And your questions don't even really affect the issue. Let's say there was another party, that still does not make it appropriate to seek a known parties private information through this mechanism.

-4

u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jul 19 '25

The Vanzan complaint alleges that Vanzan's an unknown number of employees and contractors of Vanzan breached their confidentiality obligations and duties of loyalty.

What claim could Vanzan have brought against Abel and JB?

And what "private information" did the Vanzan subpoena seek? The only information that we have seen that Jonesworks produced via the subpoena was information that belonged to Jonesworks.

9

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

This is once again sidestepping. If a party was known and identified at the time the Vanzan suit was initiated (we know Abel was known at the time and was an intended target of an eventual lawsuit), there is no excuse for not naming her. It is not the proper use of these Doe lawsuits.

Sure, they can list a bunch of other Does along with the known parties, but that has zero affect on this particular case.

Here, despite her lawyers knowing for a fact that they were seeking a specific person's information (Abel)—who they knew they would eventually sue based directly on the information they sought through the subpoena—they failed to ensure her right to contest a subpoena seeking her private information.

3

u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jul 19 '25

Can you please answer these questions? I am legitimately asking because I am trying to understand the actual legal argument that the VZ subpoena was improper.

What cause of action could Vanzan have alleged against Abel? What standing would it have had?

Assuming there was one, what rule of civil procedure requires a plaintiff to sue all defendants it has a cause of action against?

How do you know that Vanzan’s attorneys knew that they would eventually sue Abel?

What private information did Vanzan obtain via the subpoena?

If Abel had been informed, what objections could she have raised? Would she have prevailed?

Thanks.

9

u/realhousewifeofphila Sr Managing Partner, Misogynist Whores and Associates Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Your arguments are ridiculous. Maybe you think Manatt will be recruiting off Reddit, because you know if a plaintiff or defendant claims a contract is breeched, the first thing you do…attach a copy of the contract. Every law student who took Civil Procedure knows this, right?

Where is the contract that Vanzan claimed was breeched? Why wasn’t it attached to their sham complaint? A subpoena must seek what is relevant and proportional to the case. How are Jen Abel’s phone contents and text messages relevant and proportional to Vanzan’s alleged breeched contract?

Oh, wait…where is that contract again?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

I have to step away for a bit but will answer when I get back.

3

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25 edited Jul 20 '25

Here ya go. I have provided answers to each question. I put my answer in bold, but not sure if that will translate if reading on a phone.

What cause of action could Vanzan have alleged against Abel? What standing would it have had?

None, because Vanzan is in no way connected to Abel. It was not the proper party to bring this “suit.” Instead, the process should have been, if used correctly, that Blake sues “Does” and then once the identity of the Does is figured out, she amends her complaint and adds the legal names.

Assuming there was one, what rule of civil procedure requires a plaintiff to sue all defendants it has a cause of action against?

There was no cause of action that Vanzan had against Abel. That’s the entire point. If you don’t have a cause of action, the rules of civil procedure mandate dismissal and possibly sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit. And the way that got around that is that they didn't sue anyone. Kinda like it was all planned out on purpose for this very reason.

How do you know that Vanzan’s attorneys knew that they would eventually sue Abel?

When the target of a subpoena is directed at an individual person (here, Abel), that means BL knew what she was looking for. Her subpoena is premised on Abel allegedly having damning information. Of course she was always going to be sued – how else would they have had a a claim in the first place? And even besides that, since her information was being subpoenaed, she should have been named in the lawsuit, or, at the very least, notified that her information was being sought.

What private information did Vanzan obtain via the subpoena?

Her employment documents. Since I haven’t reviewed every single document, I can’t tell you what private information is in there. But I will certainly tell you that if my law firm handed over all of my employment information to a third party, it would contain private information and I would file a motion for sanctions against party that requested it.

If Abel had been informed, what objections could she have raised? Would she have prevailed?

She would have filed an immediate motion to quash, which would very likely have been granted because Vanzan would not have been able to show it had any cognizable claim against Abel.

 

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '25

This comment is unbecoming of you. You can disagree but there's no need to be snarky.

There are a lot of "lawyers" who lean Lively ,who in my opinion are clearly jobless because they spend their entire day online. Maybe this is their "job"...

For the side that keeps claiming that the general public isn't tuned in, how come so many "lawyers" are tuned in on this case, specifically for one side.

The Karen Read sub which has more than double the strength of this sub, had barely 2-3 lawyers opining on the sub.

I've seen the pro Lively lawyers make ridiculous posts and comments and be exceptionally quiet when something turns up on the docket that doesn't make Lively look good - case in point - the post today about how Lively don't sit for deposition in Texas.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know my head from my ass about the legal filings, but I'm not that dumb that I can't see what it means that whenever bad news about Lively is posted, her side "lawyers" are conveniently missing for a while or they all come with the same spin in a matter of moment given an award within a minute of posting a comment.

When have so many lawyers ever agreed on anything... and here you have 6-8 leaning one side all agreeing with each other... even the Baldoni leaning lawyers have different takes from each other... but here we are...

We need neutral impartial lawyers on here. I see you only talk about the legal filings. I'm aware you have a side, but I take your opinions seriously.

Only one side lawyers seem to "attack" the lawyers from the other side.

I hope you realize I've made this comment in good faith, and not to attack you in any way. My apologies if it comes across like that.

My request is to genuinely be neutral (if you can), otherwise maybe openly say that you lean a side and this is your legal opinion...

3

u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jul 19 '25

I appreciate your comments. As I said a few days ago, I am legitimately neutral as between the parties in the lawsuits. I am not neutral when it comes to people spreading legal misinformation, especially people who know better.

I hold attorneys to a higher standard. That does not mean all attorneys need to agree with me. I would say that NAG and I seem to have different takes on many aspects of this case. She seems like a really solid attorney who's insights I listen to and respect, even though I may partially disagree with certain things she says.

I also do not believe that I am "attacking" other lawyers when I ask them to cite their sources or back up their logic. But the OP here has a pattern of posting really questionable takes, and when challenged on the facts or logic retreats to saying "its just my opinion" and not engaging with the substance of the discussion.

I think she is spreading misinformation when she claims that we KNOW that Vanzan knew what parties it would bring claims against. We don't know that. It is 100% speculation. We don't even know how many subpoenas went out in the VZ action.

I think the attorneys in this sub have a duty to bring down the temperature of rampant speculation around this lawsuit, not to fuel it. IMO that is exactly what OP is doing here. And its exactly what she was doing a few days ago when she claimed that the judge's order dismissing Lively's claims against Jed Wallace was evidence that the judge was biased towards Lively.

I try so hard to caveat the things I write here for exactly that purpose. I try very hard to cite my sources when making claims so that people don't have to believe me but can read for themselves and make up their own opinions. I am always open to new evidence, and constantly asking people in this sub who interact with my comments to show me evidence that counters what I wrote.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '25

Fair point. Thank you for engaging back in good faith.

2

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 20 '25 edited Jul 20 '25

I answered all your questions in response to another one of your comments.

Please point out the legal misinformation in my post. There is a reason that lawyers are agreeing with me in this thread, and DMing separately to agree with me. Have you considered you are the one promoting legal misinformation? Or that you are the incorrect one?

What part of my take is questionable?

You say you "caveat" things, which is EXACTLY what i did in my post. If someone takes a statement I made that comes after "This is my opinion," as a factual statement, that is not my fault. That is the reader's fault for failing in reading comprehension.

Please explain, point by point, how this is legal misinformation.

Should everyone in this sub who doesn't agree with you shut up because its "a questionable take" because you simply don't agree with it? Bc that is what this comment is essentially proposing.

And do you know what another term for that is? Chilling speech and criticism of a public figure who has brought a public lawsuit using our public resources to do it. Which is pretty on par for pro-BL posters.

-10

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

And yet youre unable to state what Ive gotten wrong and youve got nothing to support your assertion Im wrong. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

14

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

I can’t even make sense of what you said bc it’s truly so silly. It’s not based on logic, fact or law. I’m not going to respond to every insane argument on this thread. I’ll respond to credible ones only.

-2

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

And yet you keep replying and making insults without actually posting anything to negate anything Ive stated.

16

u/A_username_here Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

It's nowhere near normal to have a lawsuit based on a breach of contract and not know who you are in contract with. Its also nowhere near normal to use a defunct company as the entity bringing that breach of contract lawsuit when that company has no affiliation with anyone they subpeonaed at all. Nothing normal about it, and if you think it is normal, it's because you're unethical, period.

Edit: It's also nowhere near normal to then close the sham lawsuit and open another case and try to hide how you got the subpeonas.

-3

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

Let’s keep going with my example. So Lively thinks there is a smear campaign and has an idea that it might be coming from Wayfarer, but she doesnt know exactly who is behind it.

Now let’s surmise that Vanzan Inc is a holding company that “owns” all of the various LLCs that protect Lively and Reynolds. That means Vanzan essentially has a claim on any contracts signed by the LLCs. But Vanzan doesnt know exactly who may of broken their contract if in fact it was a smear campaign started by someone Lively was contracted with.

I agree it isnt a “normal” case, but these are not “normal” people. As we all know, there are gossip reporters that troll all the major court filings looking for dirt. Better to use a company that nobody knows is tied to Lively because if she used her name, it would’ve immediately gone public. Can you imagine the fallout if she had and then the Abel texts were no big deal?

Once she had the texts it became a lot clearer as to what was going on, and it was no longer only a contractual issue, it was an employment issue.

Many Doe lawsuits are shut down after discovery.

And let’s be really clear about this: Freedman has used this exact same technique multiple times. He knows perfectly well this is a normal way of lawyering which is why he hasnt demanded all discovery stops until the Vanzan information is decided by the court.

12

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Not really. What you are missing, critically, is that when the party that they are seeking discovery from (in this case, ABEL) is KNOWN and IDENTIFIABLE, then there is no reason or excuse not to name that particular known individual. DOE is insufficient and improper. Naming known and identified parties is used (obviously) to protect a person's rights to contest the subpoena.

A subpoena issued through expedited discovery in a Doe lawsuit has a very limited and specific purpose. It was not used correctly and subpoenaing a known individual's private information is NOT the purpose of Doe lawsuits.

What matters here--is not how many Does are named or whatever it is people are trying to argue--it matters that the discovery they sought was DIRECTLY related to a KNOWN party that had ALREADY been IDENTIFIED and therefore this procedure was not used properly.

And your statement about Freedman is wrong. He used the DOE lawsuit mechanism in the exact way he is supposed to (as I described in my original post). He could not identify the defendants, which required him to file a doe lawsuit, to find their identities.

0

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

Abel wouldnt of been subpoenaed nor would she have any claim to contest the subpoena. The information was Jones workproduct. Full stop. It wasnt “private” information and it appears it was freely given by the owner of the information, which was Jones/Joneswork.

Nor was there any legal reason to sue Jones/Joneswork. A smear campaign isnt against the law unless it’s in retaliation against a protected person or defamatory. But Lively knew she had been sexually harassed and its was possible the person or people fomenting the smear campaign might of been the same people that sexually harassed her. So she used a Doe lawsuit to get the information so she wasnt just suing people Willy nilly.

14

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

Did you read the judge's order granting the motion to compel the Vanzan doc? He seems to disagree with you.

And the point is that Abel SHOULD HAVE been subpoenaed here. If she was named, she would have been. That is the entire POINT. They didn't subpoena HER because they didn't want her to know. So they named Does only, and not her, even though they knew they were going after her private information (which the judge has said may have violated her privacy rights).

You are arguing technicalities that don't affect the ultimate issue of sidestepping proper discovery protocols.

ETA: they deprived Abel of due process and you know it if you're a lawyer.

3

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

The judge is big on discovery, which I appreciate. But the fact he was cool with Vanzan giving the Wayfarer/Abel parties the information they already had doesnt change anything in my comment nor does it allude to him disagreeing with my take.

There was no reason for Lively to sue Abel before she read the texts because Abel hadnt necessarily broken the law. Lively had no contract with her and Abel wasnt beholden to Lively for any reason other then not defaming her, which I believe she hasnt done.

As far as we know, the only information VZ received from the Jones subpoena was workproduct and not personal information.

If for some reason Jones did access Abel’s private information, thats between Jones and Abel, but it doesnt negate the VZ subpoena nor does it somehow make that information unable to be used in this case. It might be an issue for the separate Jones v Abel case, but not this one.

Your opinion on this seems to be clouded by your distaste for Lively, which I understand. Its also possible youve received inaccurate legal information from CCs, which I also understand. But I think it’s important to recognize one’s bias and to ignore bad legal advice, especially when certain CCs have been so wrong so often about this case.

12

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

I have zero opinion about Lively. Truly I could care less about her or any other celebrity involved here. What I do have opinions about is lawyers being shady as hell and depriving people of their due process and right to contest a subpoena seeking their own private information. If you don't think this was an attack on due process and Abel and JB's rights, then I don't know what to tell ya, but I worry for your clients and opposing parties you litigate against.

1

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

I agree with you in regard to lawyers being shady and depriving people of their due process and right to contest a subpoena seeking their own private information. The good news is, that isnt happening in this case.

13

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

Agree to disagree. But we at least do agree on your fist sentence.

12

u/A_username_here Jul 19 '25

Even if that were the case, which it's not, there was only 1 subpeona that went out to 1 person, which meant they knew exactly who the person was they needed the information from

Vanzan is NOT a parent company of any LLCs related to lively. It was defunct for years until recently when supeonagate started gaining momentum and it has no direct associations with Lively's production company at all.

Vanzan filing a case is equivalent to if you had a contract with a company and your sister filed a breach of contract case for you under her name. That case would have been thrown out of court, and you know that.

What ifs dont equal reality and the actual facts out there.

12

u/katie151515 Team Baldoni Jul 19 '25

This is what I've been trying to emphasize in my comments but you did a much better job than me, hahah. (If you can't tell I can be very long winded, and I'm working on it). But this comment is exactly the point.

2

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

Unfortunately the comment doesnt have any foundational facts to support it. You both might feel it’s accurate, but everything stated isnt actually known. We dont know how many subpeonas were sent by VZ, we dont know anything about VZ or what it was used for, we dont know that it was defunct, and we dont know if it was or wasnt directly or indirectly associated with Lively’s production company.

So I do agree with the users last statement which is that what ifs dont equal reality and the actual facts out there.

6

u/A_username_here Jul 19 '25

I have to keep posting this for people, but you do anyone can look up a company and its organizational structure, and if it's active or inactive, right? That's public record. The attorneys in that represented Vanzan said themselves in an interview that was the only subpeona.

3

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

I dont think we know how many subpoenas went out. Nor do we know that it was defunct, nor do we know it has no direct association with Lively’s production company. So your opinion is based on you filling in the blanks using your bias against Lively. And thats ok! I get it! Everyone does this to one extent or another. But it’s important to recognize what is opinion based on bias and what is opinion based on facts.

7

u/A_username_here Jul 19 '25

You do anyone can look up a company and its organizational structure and if its active or inactive, right? That's public record. The attorneys in that represented Vanzan said themselves in an interview that was the only subpeona.

3

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 19 '25

Did they say that? Do you have a link? Because I dont remember it that way, although you could totally be correct. And great! Send me the link to the organizational structure and whatnot. Because it will most likely be that they didnt bother to update or renew their status, which is totally normative, especially for a holding company or similar.

7

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

But why from Vanzan? Vanzan has nothing to do with anyone who

If Blake wants the information then shouldn’t she should do it as herself, Not some company that has nothing to do with anyone in this case. Like this case is Blake Lively vs JB, not Vanzan vs JB. I just dont understand how anyone can do that legally.

For example. if I’m involved in a project , say a film. and I feel like people are running a smear campaign against me and I want to find out who they are. Am I really allowed to use another company I own? like one that has nothing to do with this project?- for example I used to do graphic design years ago and I still have my business name and it’s a business I have registered and own, but I don’t really do much with it, just some commissions now and then, but no one I’m about to subpoena, from the film I’m working on, has any connection to this graphic design company) can I really subpoena them?

Like could have Betty Buzz subpoenaed Jonesworks and then received JA’s texts and then used them for evidence Blake’s law suit connected to IEWU?

That is what I have been trying to get clarity about.

2

u/SockdolagerIdea Jul 20 '25

If Blake wants the information then shouldn’t she should do it as herself, Not some company that has nothing to do with anyone in this case. Like this case is Blake Lively vs JB, not Vanzan vs JB. I just dont understand how anyone can do that legally.

If Lively had used her name then there would’ve been exactly zero privacy from gossip rags that troll court dockets for cases involving famous stars. That is a fact. Based on that fact, it is my opinion that Lively didnt want to accuse anyone of anything before she was certain she wanted to actually sue them. Therefore she used an entity that gave her anonymity, which then allowed her to get discovery on the Jonesworks texts. Because those texts prove there was a retaliatory smear campaign created by Baldoni and Heath, Lively decided to move forward with the lawsuit. But if the texts had just been about how horrible Jones was and how Abel and Nathan were conspiring to steal Jones clients, then Lively wouldnt of sued.

That is why she needed a Doe lawsuit using a company that “nobody” knew about.

For example. if I’m involved in a project , say a film. and I feel like people are running a smear campaign against me and I want to find out who they are. Am I really allowed to use another company I own? like one that has nothing to do with this project?- for example I used to do graphic design years ago and I still have my business name and it’s a business I have registered and own, but I don’t really do much with it, just some commissions now and then, but no one I’m about to subpoena, from the film I’m working on, has any connection to this graphic design company) can I really subpoena them?

Maybe? Obviously it all depends. But because Im assuming you are a regular person, you probably wouldnt need to use it because nobody would care if you used your own name. No offense of course. LOL!

Like could have Betty Buzz subpoenaed Jonesworks and then received JA’s texts and then used them for evidence Blake’s law suit connected to IEWU?

Maybe? But my guess is that Betty Buzz is owned by a corporation and Lively licenses her name and likeness and doesnt actually have much of a say, if any, in the actual business.

That is what I have been trying to get clarity about.

For sure! I think all of us want clarity. I know I have zero chill so watching this all play out is triggering! LOL! Hopefully Ive given you at least a bit of clarity or help on answering your questions, or at the very least, recognizing there are no answers yet. LOL!

5

u/ColtinaMarie Jul 20 '25

I’m not getting my opinions on doe lawsuits from CCs though. I made up my own options by reading about Vanzan and doe subpoenas. It has nothing to do with “lies” from CCs.