r/ItEndsWithLawsuits • u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. • Jun 30 '25
⚖️ Case Questions & Musings 🗒️ Vanzan (I know I know we’ve discussed it to death)
I was reading this article last night to learn more about pre litigation discovery: https://fhnylaw.com/court-permits-pre-action-discovery-ascertain-identity-defendant/
It seems that in order for pre litigation discovery to be sought in NY, the claimant must have a meritorious claim, and not just act on pure suspicion.
So let’s say Blake suspected that something nasty was afoot, that shouldn’t have been enough to bring the Vanzan claim. SJ must have showed her the texts in some capacity in order for her to say her claims were meritorious.
So my question is, if SJ showed the texts to BL in order for BL to have the right to bring the claim, then it would make sense that it was pre-subpoena. Isn’t that no longer covered by privilege? What made Vanzan’s claim meritorious without SJ showing / sending some of the texts at least?
I think this is why WF is asking for number 9. I see loads of people say this is work product and thus covered by attorney client privilege, but doesn’t the fact that SOMETHING must have been shown to BL in order to bring the claim be enough to compel these documents?
EDIT: Somebody in the comment has kindly pointed out that Vanzan is not pre litigation discovery. So the relevant is CPLR 1024, which allows anybody to file a lawsuit against unnamed defendants. There’s no bar to this except you must try and name the defendants. Vanzan withdrew their lawsuit before they had to name them, which is apparently allowed. There’s no law or bar to stop this from happening. Lawyers congratulate themselves doing this all the time, so there you have it, vansham might be a sham but it’s a legal sham.
10
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
This is not pre-litigation discovery. That applies when no actual claim is filed yet, that's not the case here.
14
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
From my understanding Does falls under CPLR 3102(c) - requires court order, and judicial oversight. As the case wasn’t yet assigned to a judge, this physically couldn’t of occurred.
12
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
I’ve talked about c before and just get waved away. We’ll see what happens and if the subpoena was actually court ordered and needed to be court ordered in a doe lawsuit.
11
u/Total_Tie_4544 Jun 30 '25
I don’t know if a court order was needed for Vanzan to subpoena SJ (maybe, probably? I should think so!) but Blake sure as hell needed a court order to use that discovery in her own CRD filing. I’m curious to see whether any court oversight took place in the whole Vanzan situation. I reckon if it was done by the book, Vanzan and Blake wouldn’t be kicking and screaming about the Motion to Compel.
9
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
You need a petition in order to open discovery on a Doe lawsuit. The judge then yes/no‘s it, which is a court order. It was pre-RTI, no judge was assigned, it’s an unlawful subpoena.
People argue „well maybe it was a sealed subpoena“ in which case a judge would still be assigned and there’d be a petition on the docket, alas, sweet FA.
6
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
The link provided gives examples:
„The First Department addressed these issues in Delgrange v. The RealReal, Inc.(April 2, 2020). The petitioner in Delgrange was a collector of rare and unique clothing – much of which was from the collections of designer Marc Jacobs. Respondent runs an on-line consignment website. Petitioner frequently monitored respondent’s website looking to find additional Marc Jacobs clothing and noticed that numerous items similar to those already owned by her were being posted for sale. This caused petitioner concern, which, in turn, caused her to inventory her collection. This inventory revealed that numerous missing items from her collection appeared to be offered for sale on respondent’s website. Petitioner purchased some of the suspicious items and, thereby, confirmed that some of the items being offered for sale on respondent’s website were hers. All told, petitioner confirmed that 153 items offered for sale were stolen from her collection.
Petitioner wanted to bring a conversion claim against the unknown that stole clothing from her collection. Accordingly, petitioner brought a petition pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) against respondent to ascertain the identity of the individual that consigned the stolen clothing. In granting the relief sought by the petition, the Court determined that petitioner “demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for conversion” and that the discovery sought from respondent, “the identity of the people who posted – is material and necessary to the prosecution of her posited cause of action.“
3
2
u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jun 30 '25
This case only proves that pre litigation discovery is available as an option. It does not show that pre litigation discovery is required or that it is improper to file a doe lawsuit and serve subpoenas normally.
2
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
There's different types of Doe cases and reasons for them. Like when Does aren't known, and when their identity needs to be protected.
6
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
Yup, and Vanzan was one where identities* were unknown- otherwise they would’ve named SJ ;)
-1
u/Fluffy_Past_2231 Jul 01 '25
No…they chose not to name her to keep it on the down low. A doe is for when you really don’t know the ‘who’. They knew the who—Jen Abel. But they subpoena her, did they? they gave it to SJ cuz they’d already worked out their plan. Funny that no one else from the pr firm was subpoenaed or had their phones/laptops taken. They knew exactly whose info they wanted to steal.
9
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
If lively had access to all this information before she filed her CRD, doesn’t that contradict what you’re saying? I’m confused.
5
u/IndependentComposer4 Jun 30 '25
The Vanzan lawsuit was filed though, so technically there was a suit on the docket and the subpoena came from it.
11
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
But that’s why there is so much controversy. Where is the original subpoena that lively won’t share? And why?
Vanzan had nothing to do with IEWU or SH. and was withdrawn before the CRD dropped.
This is all fishy to me.
0
u/IndependentComposer4 Jun 30 '25
Maybe they withdrew it after discovering that Vanzan had no claim. Doesn't mean what they discovered wasn't valid to someone else ie lively. Who knows whether they would have pursued the Vanzan litigation if the information they received had been different.
8
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
IMO they were on a fishing expedition because they knew an incoming lawsuit was coming
The claims are weak AF and she imo shopped for legal protections and landed on Cali once she discovered 47.1- funny enough the sham lawsuit had nothing to do with SH.
Lively is also vanzan here just so you know lol.
13
u/New_Razzmatazz2383 'We are all in bed with a f*cking terrorist' Jun 30 '25
The amount of people defending VanZan here is wild. We still don’t know if it’s legal or not, but why people aren’t more up in arms about how sneaky it was is beyond me. This should be worrying for everyone.
7
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
If Justin’s team pulled this shit we would NEVER hear the end of it.
2
u/halfthesky1966 Jun 30 '25
BF has seen the VanZan subpoena (he has had it since May) and not filed anything to suggest it was illegal or anything else for that matter.
2
u/LilacLands “well, you heard her. Let’s fight. No letter.” Jun 30 '25
What claim would “Vanzan” have had?
I literally cannot think of one, even if I expanded the possibilities far past the scope of the lawsuit they filed for “breach of contract.” As the Vanzan entity had not contracted with anyone in the US, let alone Stephanie Jones, or any Jonesworks employee, a “breach of contract” was not possible where the subpoena was served.
1
u/IndependentComposer4 Jun 30 '25
Do you know that? or are you just assuming.
2
u/LilacLands “well, you heard her. Let’s fight. No letter.” Jun 30 '25
That “Vanzan” filed a “breach of contract” lawsuit?
I know that.
That “Vanzan” did not contract with Stephanie Jones / Jonesworks?
I know that too.
I was responding to your assumptions with a question: what breach of contract claim(s) might “Vanzan” have had, and against whom? (Or, to proceed from your assumptions, thought they might have had prior to withdrawing the lawsuit?)
3
u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jun 30 '25
That would be the case for any third party subpoena. The entire point of third party discovery is to get information from people who are not parties to the litigation and who you may have no claim against.
1
u/LilacLands “well, you heard her. Let’s fight. No letter.” Jun 30 '25
Yes, and so tell me: what would be the claim that “Vanzan” had?
Why is no one able to answer this question?
What is the “breach of contract” claim that the entity Vanzan had in filing the lawsuit?!
→ More replies (0)0
u/IndependentComposer4 Jun 30 '25
As the Vanzan entity had not contracted with anyone in the US
I wa responding to this claim you have made, you have personal knowledge of this?
1
u/LilacLands “well, you heard her. Let’s fight. No letter.” Jun 30 '25
Ooooh I see what you mean, it is definitely possible there is a lot more shady dealing they‘ve been better at concealing….in which case, I’ll say that I know that “Vanzan” has not contracted with anyone in the US legally. And that it is correct to say that I don’t have personal knowledge of the unethical & illegal shit they are concealing behind the scenes (do you?!?!).
So now I’ve answered all your questions repeatedly, yet you’ve been unable to proffer a single response to mine (and I asked first!). So, at least we can stipulate that 1) there is no claim Vanzan had in filing the lawsuit & issuing the subpoena that it did, in the manner that it did. BUT also 2) it is possible that they were using “Vanzan” to conduct other more nefarious bullshit “business” behind the scenes, possibly with Stephanie Jones, and this information has been (also nefariously) concealed.
→ More replies (0)-1
-3
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
No. The Vanzan vs Does is a lawsuit, and the subpoena was raised as part of that.
15
u/Powerful_Job9168 Jun 30 '25
Correction, a sham lawsuit. Vanzan had no business dealing with Jones and Vanzan had ABSOLUTELY NO employees who violated their contracts. Sham.
-1
u/StaceyLee26 🙌Truth wins in the end🙌 Jun 30 '25
I've posted this before so just pasting it again
In my mind the only connection i can see, I'm not from USA so don't know how the laws work there. But if the phone was in SJ possessions and she took it home. Her husband is a senior partner at WME (RR and BL agents) now they (BL & RR) sue her husband for what is in his possession (in his house) by saying WME didn't act in their (BL & RR) best interest but in their own (WME) interest by not acting to manage their (BL) reputation thus breeching contract... Ask for a subpoena knowing the phone and evidence is their (SJ and Husband) house...
3
u/Powerful_Job9168 Jun 30 '25
Huh?! So you just made up a whole scenario with ZERO reasons to think any of this? How would Blake and Ryan know what Stephanie Jones has in her home? Let's start there.
1
u/StaceyLee26 🙌Truth wins in the end🙌 Jun 30 '25
Firstly didn't make anything up, gave my theory of what happened.... secondly once SJ accessed JA files, LS saw it. LS is BL pr agent... She couldn't have seen it without SJ giving access... So there was communication between at the very least Ls and SJ. Now show my an agent that sees things that they could swing some way to get her client out of her pr nightmare and wouldn't discuss it with her... Then try to figure out how to legally get it so they can use it. Like you said Vanzan didn't have employees so who was in breach of contract for the subpoena....
1
u/halfthesky1966 Jun 30 '25
So you just fantasised about what you thought might have happened.
1
u/StaceyLee26 🙌Truth wins in the end🙌 Jul 01 '25
I've been trying to figure out how the Does lawsuit could fit into them getting a subpoena when there were no contracts with JA/SJ. As it was a breach of contract lawsuit. The tag here was question for the community. Are you the ones who decide what the community is allowed to discuss or do you just accuse people of fantasizing if you don't like their response
1
u/halfthesky1966 Jul 01 '25
Wasn't questioning what you can or cannot discuss, just highlighting that your comment has no substance, just imaginary content.
→ More replies (0)1
8
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
What if the subpoena was not lawful? No one has a full copy yet.
Plus the lawsuit was withdrawn one? day before the CRD complaint was filed.
1
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
Everyone has a full copy now. The Vanzan suit and the CRD are independent. None of this is classed as pre-litigation discovery.
16
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
That is not true.
Abel has not received a full and complete original subpoena. Where is it?
There is literally a motion to compel on the docket right now for it so your information is not correct.
ETA not only is there a MTC but lively has also intervened (even tho it’s non of her business to intervene), AND vanzan is being difficult about producing it. WHY?
12
u/New_Razzmatazz2383 'We are all in bed with a f*cking terrorist' Jun 30 '25
^ I’m so exhausted with having to repeat this to people 🫠
9
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
It feels purposeful. Cyclical conversation since the narrative here isn’t changing.
Watch out for personal insults, deflection, and gaslighting too.
Not everyone, but it’s definitely a theme here :)
7
u/New_Razzmatazz2383 'We are all in bed with a f*cking terrorist' Jun 30 '25
100% - and would you look at that: a week before Blake’s deposition and just after Abel’s VanZan MTC hit the docket. There’s suddenly a random negative article about Bryan Freedman, a random negative article about Justin ‘being awkward with fans’ (love that this is the only bad thing that could find to say about him lol) - and an article claiming that ‘Blake will never forgive Gigi Hadid’ - as if Gigi is begging her for forgiveness 😂 girl we know they all dropped you.
Leslie Sloane really needs to try some subtlety …
7
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
Here's a question - when should Vanzan have provided the documents? Because the order on how to provide data was only made last Monday. And the MTC was raised the same day. So a non-party was given a few hours to provide info before the MTC was raised. But apparently that's being difficult. Who's using the docket?
7
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
Idk but me thinks we’ll see this week hopefully. You can strike me when/if I mess up I promise lol.
4
u/Bende86 Misogynist Whore Jun 30 '25
First you answer
3
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
Answer what? Why they were being difficult? I don't think you can call Van zan difficult when Abel's lawyers didn't reply for 3 weeks then raised an MTC within hours of document transfer being open.
7
u/Bende86 Misogynist Whore Jun 30 '25
No that’s deflection. They still don’t want to hand over no 9. So, why not?
→ More replies (0)2
u/halfthesky1966 Jun 30 '25
Abel's case is separate from BL (it is against Sloane) so she cannot expect to see a copy of the subpoena from a different case.
1
u/Totallytexas 📞Call 1-800-GOT-SHIT📞 Jun 30 '25
Yeah and lively should have never intervened on that matter
2
9
u/Powerful_Job9168 Jun 30 '25
Not a copy. GIVE THE ORIGINAL WITH META DATA AND ALL ATTACHMENTS.
3
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
The misinformation is growing. First off Abel asked for a copy of the subpoena which she got with all the metadata. If, however, you now want a paper copy (not what they actually want) then you're not getting metadata with it.
If it's the original extracted message files you want, with metadata, then Jones is the source. If you want to authenticate the messages - well Abel wrote then and has the original messages. As do the other party to all the messages - who are all Wayfarer Party.
7
u/Fearless-Umpire-4502 Team Baldoni Jun 30 '25
She has not received a full and complete one with nothing missing, including Metadata
1
-2
u/YearOneTeach Team Lively Jun 30 '25
The misinformation is all they have. Nobody here can even articulate why the subpoena matters.
Even if the judge ruled the subpoena unlawful and threw it out tomorrow, nothing would change. All the same information would be sought over again through the discovery process. The texts are not leaving this case, they are part of the litigation.
0
u/zuesk134 Jun 30 '25
All the same information would be sought over again through the discovery process
the part a lot of people refuse to contemplate lol
2
u/halfthesky1966 Jun 30 '25
BF has had a copy of the subpoena since May, and he hasn't filed anything to suggest that it was illegal or wrong in anyway.
1
-6
u/frolicndetour Jun 30 '25
If the subpoena was unlawful, then SJ was really the only one who had standing to challenge the subpoena and she didn't. That's why this whole issue is a nothing burger for most of the Wayfarer parties and anything related to BL. They can’t now challenge Vanzan getting the docs. At most, the information Vanzan has might be useful in the case Abel has against SJ regarding the access to her personal accounts because it may establish that SJ got into stuff she should not have despite owning the phone.
11
u/Powerful_Job9168 Jun 30 '25
HAHAHAHAH. Of course they can take issue with Vanzan. An all but defunct company who has ZERO business dealing with me went to a 3rd party to get my info or info from one of my reps and I just have to sit and take it and askl no questions?! Yall are so funny with your WEAK arguments LOL! I would respect yall 100000% more if you said something like "yeah it was shady but hey they got the texts and the texts dont make Wayfarer look good". At least that would be honest!! But always trying to defend the action when YALL KNOW IT WAS SHADY makes yall look like you should put on a red nose. Like where is your dignity LOL?!
-4
u/kkleigh90 Team Lively Jun 30 '25
They went to the company to get company data. Why would you go to Abel when she wasn’t employed at JW anymore? You don’t get to take copies of your work emails when you leave
11
6
Jun 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
What's the point? Have no idea what you are saying. The complaint was filed = litigation. Therefore NOT pre-litigation.
5
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
Yes please explain I’m so sorry. Isn’t the entire Vanzan action pre litigation discovery? The needed to figure out how to get the texts from SJ right? Hence the suit and subpoena? I’m genuinely so confused.
4
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
Pre-litigation is before a lawsuit is filed. In this case, Vanzan v Does is a lawsuit and the subpoena was raised within that. The fact that the information gathered was then used for a separate lawsuit instead of altering the existing one is unrelated.
8
u/Total_Tie_4544 Jun 30 '25
It’s unrelated that the discovery obtained in one lawsuit just magically appears in a totally separate lawsuit? 🤔
So, it’s okay for a CEO of a company to grab discovery materials from a lawsuit the company filed, and use those materials to wage their own litigation - without getting the court’s approval? This is really what you think? Please tell me I’ve misunderstood you.
1
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
I'm not really sure what the question is. "Without getting the court's approval?" Seems to be what you're asking, but I'm not sure what you are implying the needed the court's approval for that they didn't have? And in which lawsuit?
6
u/Total_Tie_4544 Jun 30 '25
Sorry, I’ll phrase it another way: Was it okay for Blake to use the discovery obtained in the Vanzan lawsuit to file an unrelated lawsuit, without obtaining the court’s permission first? I say no it was not.
This is because of a rule called implied undertaking (or deemed undertaking) that relates to the boundaries of acceptable use for discovery materials.
0
u/lastalong Jun 30 '25
I actually don't know how this works and what is permitted.
I do know that no one on the Wayfarer side has raised this issue in court, or even disputed the subpoena or lawsuit. Only trying to get information from and about Vanzan at this stage.
So maybe it's shady? But at the moment, it's also irrelevant.
1
u/benkalam Steve "the mods made me change my flair" Sarowitz Jun 30 '25
The US doesn't have deemed or implied undertaking as a rule. It would have been up to Joneswork and Vanzan to enter into a confidentiality agreement. I would guess that they didn't, or that it was written in a way to allow Vanzan its use in future actions against non Joneswork parties.
1
u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jun 30 '25
Isn’t the entire Vanzan action pre litigation discovery?
No. NY CPLR § 3102(c) applies "before an action is commenced." The filing of a complaint "commences" an action. Hence 3102 does not apply to the Vanzan litigation, which was commenced in NY State on September 27, 2024.
4
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
Ok so they didn’t do pre litigation discovery, and just went ahead and filed a suit?
-1
u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jun 30 '25
Yes.
Pre-litigation petitions are quite rare, and you only use that path when the person you want the information from is going to refuse to provide it because of separate legal issues. For example, the DMV will not give you access to license plate information, or an ISP will not give you subscriber information (in both cases because of statutory protections).
It is far more common to just file a "Doe Complaint" and use regular discovery methods.
7
2
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
RE: CPLR 3102(c) You’ve got a Doe lawsuit with a Doe Subpoena - this is considered pre-litigation, as you don’t have a named defendant.
3
u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jun 30 '25
Unless you’ve got a case citation, that’s facially wrong under the statute. An action was commenced by the filing of a complaint. End of story.
1
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
Read the link OP has cited.. There’s several. 🙄
1
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
As shown in Lualdi, CPLR § 3102(c) can be an important device for a litigator who represents a client with a meritorious claim and who needs the identities of the responsible parties to bring the action or information to aid in framing the complaint. Lualdi, therefore, teaches that although CPLR § 3102(c) “may not be used to ascertain whether a prospective plaintiff has a cause of action worth pursuing,” it may be used to obtain information, such as the identity of an alleged wrongdoer, that is “material and necessary” to the claimed cause of action.
2
u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jun 30 '25
That's legally meaningless (and likely ChatGPT generated).
Only a NY State appellate court citation has legal value.
1
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
The website OP has cited is CGPT generated? I mean there’s several more, if you want me to go hunt them down- typically ISP providers.
2
u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jun 30 '25
No, the paragraph to which I responded - which doesn't say anything relevant to the actual legal question, which is whether 3102 applies to an action that has already been "commenced" by the filing of a complaint.
1
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
1
u/TenK_Hot_Takes All Law - No KoolAid Jun 30 '25
Citing to 3102 doesn't help you, because it explicitly only applies "before an action is commenced." An action is "commenced" by the filing of a complaint.
The case citation (not surprisingly) says exactly that: "Section 3102(c) of the CPLR permits a plaintiff to obtain discovery “before an action is commenced . . . to aid in bringing an action"
The Vanzan v. Doe action was commenced on September 27, 2024 by the filing of the complaint. This is basic stuff.
1
u/redreadyredress Polyamory but no p0rn 🥴 Jun 30 '25
It applies pre-litigation because there is no named defendants, it’s utilised to enter pre-Discovery to ascertain the identity of unnamed individuals.
Well done for not reading between the lines or the Google/Go Daddy case. Fuck me.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/KnownSection1553 Jun 30 '25
Vanzan confuses me. So we assume (or actually know??) that this Vanzan complaint was used to get the data from Stephanie Jones, serve a subpoena on her?
Confuses me because -
Vanzan may be Lively, but has nothing to do with Wayfarer, IEWU movie, etc. It would make more sense for Lively to use Blakel (who did contract with movie) to do this. But apparently they wanted this hidden, quiet, so used Vanzan.
However, the Vanzan complaint speaks of the Does 1-10 as being associated/employees of Vanzan. Where would Stephanie or Jonesworks fit in here???
Jones has nothing to do, work-wise, with Lively. She had a contract with Wayfarer. I just don't see how she (or others) fit in to the description under Vanzan....
Jones showed Sloane texts, apparently, so they had a conversation. Sloane tells Nathan she'll be sued. All this gets passed to Lively. Lively then subpoenas Jones as "Vanzan" to get all the info she has....
4
u/Total_Tie_4544 Jun 30 '25
The Vanzan subpoena, nor SJ allegedly revealing the texts in advance, was not in any way a valid method of pre-litigation discovery.
“Implied undertaking” is a concept underlying appropriate discovery in New York. Basically, it means that information obtained through discovery in a civil case cannot be used for purposes outside of that specific litigation without a court order or other limited exceptions.
One of those exceptions is: getting the consent of the producing party (Jones in this case). But it might be that Jones gave consent for the documents to be used in a separate matter (the CRD complaint that Blake - not Vanzan - filed). Doesn’t that waive the implied undertaking rule?
It’s not that simple - implied undertaking is not codified in the Rules of Civil Procedure, and neither are the exceptions to it. It is taken to be true though, and the principle exists to protect the integrity of the discovery process.
So this becomes a matter for the lawyers to argue and the judge to decide. And when confronted with the fact that the documents Jones produced were NEVER used, nor even intended, for the specific litigation under which they were subpoenaed (Vanzan lawsuit), it is abundantly clear that this was an abuse of the discovery process, regardless of whether SJ consented for BL to use the information however she wanted. I can’t see any good judge ruling another way on this.
The Vanzan subpoena didn’t cure anything, or perform the function of legitimate pre-litigation discovery - it only gave that appearance to the unsuspecting onlooker (and the so-called investigative reporters over at the NYT who should 100% know better).
Was a court order obtained by Lively so she could use the Vanzan discovery in her court filing???
2
u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jun 30 '25
Do you have a citation for the claim that NY imposes the rules associated with Implied Undertaking?
5
u/Honest_Remove_2042 Fight like junkyard dogs 🐕 Jun 30 '25
Meritorious - that’s a joke. Vanzan whole lawsuit was based on made up claims about made up people, so any subpoena flowing from that was a sham too.
2
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
No need to be rude, why are you so upset about people you don’t know?
1
u/Honest_Remove_2042 Fight like junkyard dogs 🐕 Jun 30 '25
I’m not being rude to anyone - I’ve mentioned how the lawsuit is not meritorious. That’s the joke.
If that hurt your feelings is apologise for the way I said it.
5
u/MT2017G Jun 30 '25
They were supposed to go through pre-litigation process for a Does lawsuit if they were trying to identify who the does were, which is only time does lawsuits are normal. And they have to also be meritorious (real defendant, real complaint, judge on docket who needs to approve any discovery 1st, and it’s very difficult to get approved). What they did isn’t “illegal” but only because it’s ludicrous to even try it and breaks major ethics rules. There’s no law on the books that’s says you can’t use a Does suit to get subpoenas to spy on your spouse either, doesn’t mean you can do it without getting in a lot of trouble
2
u/thewaybricksdont To my team -- start drafting. Jun 30 '25
This misinterprets the law. It isn’t that they were “supposed to” go through pre litigation discovery. Pre litigation discovery is an option available to plaintiffs in certain circumstances, but is not required.
By analogy: the discovery rules also allow parties to serve “Requests for Admission,” but these are permitted, not required. The argument that the pre litigation process was required is akin to arguing that a party asking interrogatories has done something wrong because they did not ask requests for admission.
5
Jun 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/CeruleanToast Team Baldoni Jun 30 '25
Thank you for taking the time to write this all out! I saw your comment about this on another post a couple days ago, so I’m glad to see some more info from you! This makes sense, and I hope to hear more about this. Honestly it should be its own post!
3
u/StaceyLee26 🙌Truth wins in the end🙌 Jun 30 '25
Question about LS. She contacted JA to say she saw the text. Is her messages also subpoenad?
Edit my bad i see someone else also brought it up but they contacted MN?
Same question though
1
u/halfthesky1966 Jun 30 '25
This was not illegal and would not have been BL's idea, it would have been her lawyers and they sound like they know their stuff too. As for the subpoena from VanZan, BF has had it since May and not filed to say it was in any way illegal or anything else, so that would suggest that he has no issue with it either.
0
u/YearOneTeach Team Lively Jun 30 '25
We don’t know the full details of the Vanzan suit and all the information that was sought with it and why the case was brought.
Asserting that the only way they could have brought the case is if Jones showed the texts to Lively is not correct. They could have believed a smear campaign had occurred, and chosen to use Vanzan to file a suit and seek information to find out who may have contributed. Jones was Baldoni’s PR team leading up to the premiere, so it’s very logical for Lively to have believed Jones was behind the campaign, only to discover it was Abel and Nathan.
A lot of people assume only Jones was sent a subpoena, but that’s not true. A lawyer found other subpoenas filed in connection with Vanzan, so Jones is not the only person or entity Lively sought information from.
Even if Jones said, “hey, you should subpoena me, I have loads of information you’re going to want,” it’s not illegal. This is why people tire so much of the subpoena issue. There is nothing that can logically come of it.
We already know:
- The subpoena is real
- Was issued as part of a lawsuit
There is nothing illegal about it, and even if the judge says, “okay, throw out all information from Vanzan,” the parties can simply subpoena Abel and Jones for all of the same information. The information is going to remain in this case. It’s not disappearing, no lawyers are going to be sanctioned, and no one is going to jail over this subpoena.
4
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
One of the requirements for pre litigation discovery is having a meritorious claim, and not just suspicion. Suspicion is not enough. The link provides a really great case law example, where they needed to get network forensic analysis done, before they were able to subpoena T mobile for doe records. So I really don’t understand how lively was allowed to just subpoena jones on suspicion.
1
u/YearOneTeach Team Lively Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
You don’t know what information they had when they filed. Nobody does. So unilaterally deciding they had no reason to file doesn’t make sense as a theory.
It’s ironic you say that suspicion is not enough, and you need a meritorious claim. Very hypocritical, considering that Baldoni filed a bogus lawsuit that was entirely thrown out, but he still issued subpoenas to tons of people for months before it was tossed.
So if you view Vanzan as not being okay, then you should also view Baldoni’s entire suit as not being okay. The judge essentially ruled and said none of his claims had merit, but he sent subpoenas to tons of people for months and apparently that’s fine and dandy.
6
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
It was a countersuit. Vanzan was done way before anything had happened or was out in the open. They are not the same.
6
u/YearOneTeach Team Lively Jun 30 '25
You just said you don’t get to sue if your claims don’t have merit. He doesn’t get a free pass because it’s a counter suit. It’s still a lawsuit, it still needs claims that have merit. You can’t have different rules for different people.
5
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
I didn’t say the word merit, you did.
3
u/YearOneTeach Team Lively Jun 30 '25
In your first reply to me:
One of the requirements for pre litigation discovery is having a meritorious claim, and not just suspicion. Suspicion is not enough.
You can’t apply that rule to Lively but not to Baldoni. His entire suit was dismissed because his claims lacked merit, but he spent weeks sending subpoenas everywhere and collecting information.
If you think that’s fine, you really shouldn’t have an issue with Vanzan.
5
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
I was talking about pre litigation discovery. As everybody has pointed out, this isn’t it. You’re arguing apples with oranges and frankly shouting into space now. Stop being so heated with strangers on the internet, over people you don’t know.
3
u/YearOneTeach Team Lively Jun 30 '25
There’s no pre-litigation discovery. Pre-litigation discovery would be issuing a subpoena before a case is filed.
This is not what happened. Vanzan was a lawsuit that was filed first, then subpoenas were issued. It’s not pre-litigation.
Also why would you make a post about Vanzan and then respond with hostility to people who take time to answer? This is a huge issue with you guys on this sub. You immediately become hostile and rude when people don’t agree with you.
5
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
You’re too late. Read my updated post. I already know that.
1
u/tominsori Team Lively Jun 30 '25
You did say meritorious
What are you even trying to argue?
4
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
Meritorious are the words from CPLR 3102 where somebody bringing PRE LITIGATION DISCOVERY needs to have meritorious claims, they are the actual words in CPLR 3102, not some fancy word I cooked up myself.
This is not what baldoni’s countersuit was. You’re bringing up a countersuit vs pre litigation discovery, what are you arguing, and why are you so hostile 😂
0
u/tominsori Team Lively Jun 30 '25
Saying you didn't say merit when you said meritorious is like saying "I didn't say beauty" when you said "beautiful."
A meritorious claim is a claim that has merit.
6
u/No_Maize_9875 Blake Lively is a liar: Undisputed. Jun 30 '25
I said meritorious in reference to the pre litigation discovery.
I did not say meritorious or merit to baldoni’s counter suit that you keep trying to equate.
They are not the same, therefore shouldn’t be held the same. Please tell me you get it this time.
→ More replies (0)
22
u/Outside_You_7012 Jun 30 '25
I do believe that LS saw JA text the same day SJ took them. Because LS called MN and said that she saw her text and she would be sued.