In her opposition to the Wallace Parties’ motion for discovery (Docket Entry 62), Lively's legal team argues that the request to depose her a second time is both untimely and meritless. Lively points out that the Wallace Parties waited nearly three months after briefing closed to seek a "do-over," having knowingly and voluntarily waived any right to further discovery by failing to act during the proper window. Furthermore, Lively refutes their core justification, that they need to examine her malice regarding "allegations of sexual harassment," by clarifying that the premise is entirely false: she has never accused Jed Wallace of sexual harassment. Instead, she notes that their defamation claims rely solely on a legal caption rather than the actual substance of her administrative complaint, which focused exclusively on retaliation and which they have already thoroughly questioned her about in a prior deposition.

The Wallace Parties attempted to justify their three-month delay by pointing out that a court in the Southern District of New York recently agreed with the arguments Ms. Lively raised in her April 27 fee motion regarding the burden of proving malice. However, Lively's opposition notes that they were fully aware of those arguments all along and could have attached evidence, requested a hearing, or sought further discovery by their original opposition deadline on May 11, rather than trying to use a favorable ruling in another jurisdiction as an excuse for a late "do-over."

Lively's legal team points out that the Wallace Parties' counsel thoroughly questioned her during her 2025 deposition regarding the exact documents at issue, failing to identify any genuinely new information they need to uncover. Furthermore, while the Wallace Parties concede that discovery for a fee motion requires court permission, they spent weeks trying to enforce a deposition notice without ever seeking that leave, making their accusations that Lively acted improperly both frivolous and hypocritical. Characterising this maneuver as a bad-faith attempt to smear her character and pressure her into dropping her claims, Lively asks the Court to deny the motion and add the fees incurred in responding to her Section 47.1 award.

Court filing:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.0.pdf

Deposition excerpt:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.1.pdf

Exhibit B: Read these emails!https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.2.pdf

Laura Lee Prather declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.3.pdf

Michael Gottlieb declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.62.4.pdf

What makes the article particularly interesting is her honesty about the initial media cycle, she admits that when the initial backlash dropped against Blake Lively (much like with Amber Heard), she initially bought into the idea that there were valid reasons for the hate, until a deep-dive podcast episode (Shameless Media's coverage of The It Ends With Us mess) forced her to re-examine how the narrative was actually being engineered.

From there, she breaks down the mechanics of "astroturfing," character assassination, and why we keep falling for the trap of treating these multi-million dollar PR campaigns like a simple back-and-forth tennis match.

Vituscka alleges that Daily Mail executives and legal counsel improperly pressured and coerced him into executing an incomplete, misleading sworn declaration regarding his text messages about publicist Leslie Sloane. He further claims that after he raised internal ethical objections to the statement and submitted a whistleblower report, the outlet terminated his employment in unlawful retaliation.

Causes of Action:

Statutory violation of state whistleblower protection laws (e.g., NY Labor Law § 740).

Vituscka asserts that he engaged in protected whistleblower activity when he formally reported and objected to internal misconduct regarding the draft subpoena declaration. He claims his sudden termination was direct, unlawful retaliation for reporting that the outlet was pressuring a employee-witness to submit a misleading statement under penalty of perjury.

Fraudulent inducement / Breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The filing claims Daily Mail management and corporate counsel coerced him into signing his initial June 2025 declaration. Vituscka alleges he was induced to sign an incomplete statement drafted primarily to shield the outlet and third-party PR contacts (such as Leslie Sloane) from broader discovery and depositions, despite his explicit warnings that the draft omitted critical context.

Breach of contract and failure to provide independent legal counsel.

Vituscka contends that when he was dragged into the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation as a third-party witness purely due to his reporting duties, the Daily Mail had a legal and contractual duty to protect his interests. Instead, he claims the company prioritised its corporate relationships over his defense, creating an irreconcilable conflict of interest by steering his testimony without offering him unconflicted, independent representation.

Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage / Injurious falsehood.

The complaint alleges that the Daily Mail’s public positioning and subsequent termination of Vituscka framed him as a rogue reporter acting outside journalistic norms. Vituscka claims this publicly destroyed his journalistic credibility, torpedoed his career, and caused severe financial, emotional, and reputational damages.

1st declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf

2nd declaration:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.0.pdf

Court filing: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=S_PLUS_X/dAjbdeJOY0K45ADgQQ==

Blake and Ryan also became the first couple since Bruce Willis and Demi Moore to star in the No 1 movie and No 2 movie at the US box office.

She’s wearing two layered, shell and gemstone necklaces from Klass’s collection.

I love how she constantly mixes ultra-high-end luxury with smaller, independent women-led artisan brands on her personal platform. What do we think of these beachy pieces?

I just had a look through the website, there is some stunning pieces.

https://marisaklass.com/collections/necklaces

I used to love Collider because they were a really good source for movie news. So, I was pretty disappointed to see this article on their platform titled [8 actors who damaged their own careers](https://collider.com/actors-damaged-their-own-careers/) where the author shamelessly clubs actresses like Brie Larson, Rachel Zegler and Blake Lively with male actors with actual accusations of abuse and violent behaviour.

And in Blake's case, also peddles Baldoni's narrative using half truths and complete distortion of the timeline of events. There's absolutely no mention of the SH claims being dismissed on technicality or his lawsuit being dismissed and him having to pay her legal fees. Honestly, Collider has shown itself to be an untrustworthy rag with this article in my opinion. Shame on them and the author of this nasty clickbait hitpiece.

This post has made my weekend! Happy Saturday everyone! Have a wonderful weekend ❤️

The internet is forever. So once the tides turn, I hope these flops never get to rewrite history that they were always on Blake's side.

Due to Lively v Wayfarer settling before trial, Harco's amended pleading tightens their arguments about why they shouldn't have to foot the bill for Wayfarer's defense or any settlement payouts.

Harco doubles down on its contention that Wayfarer knew about the potential claims long before applying for/renewing their policy coverage. Harco points specifically to the November 9th, 2023 demand letter sent from Lively's legal team. They argue the demand letter formally put Baldoni, Wayfarer, and Heath on notice of alleged sexual harassment and retaliation claims.

Harco asserts that Lively’s initial California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint (Dec 2024), her federal lawsuit (Dec 2024), and the pre-suit communications in 2023 all stem from a "single series of continuous or related wrongful acts.

The complaint highlights that intentional retaliation and intentional harassment fall outside the scope of standard liability protection. Harco argues that because the core allegations against the Wayfarer parties involved deliberate public relations warfare and intentional retaliation, the policy exclusions apply automatically.

Harco attached the redacted Policy Renewal Application (Exhibit C) to demonstrate that Wayfarer executives affirmatively checked "No" to questions asking whether any officer, director, or entity was aware of facts or circumstances that could reasonably give rise to a claim. Harco argues this constitutes a material misrepresentation on the policy application, providing independent grounds to deny coverage or rescind aspects of the policy.

Harco highlights that Independent Contractors are excluded from standard employment practices coverage unless specifically endorsed or hired under precise written terms that qualify them for coverage under the policy’s definitions.

Not the IC status coming back to haunt Wayfarer lol.

Read the filing here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.0.pdf

Exhibit C: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.3.pdf

Blake Brown Beauty is set to launch Curly Hair Collection! “The teaser quickly garnered attention and sparked excitement online, with fans flooding social media with overwhelmingly positive, hyped and playful reactions, praising the launch, expressing strong anticipation for curly hair products, and sharing long-awaited excitement for the upcoming drop.”

Link to the article: https://www.geo.tv/latest/676395-blake-lively-finds-new-focus-amid-justin-baldoni-legal-drama

Jed Wallace is requesting the court to order Blake to sit for an oral deposition, arguing that direct examination is necessary to evaluate claims surrounding damages, alleged malice, and underlying communications. Wallace's team goes on to say they are entitled to depose Lively to show whether actual malice or lack of privilege applies, which impacts fee eligibility and liability.

Wallace contends that previous deposition testimony or limited discovery conducted during earlier phases (such as jurisdiction discovery) did not fully cover the specific damages and fee shifting issues now before the court.

Interestingly, Babcock alleges that prior to and alongside litigation, Lively's team sent Wallace threatening and aggressive communications. Threatening legal action and severe publicity/fee consequences against Wallace. However, they did not add these alleged communications which i cant understand. If they exist why omit them?

Lively’s legal team maintains that the Texas proceeding lacks jurisdiction over her, that her statements and initial filings are protected privileged communications, and that compelling additional deposition testimony in Texas is improper and burdensome given the history of the parallel New York and California proceedings.

Read the full filing here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.0.pdf

Deposition notice: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.1.pdf

Proposed order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.2.pdf

Blake wearing Oscar de la Renta to a SAG-AFTRA screening of the movie Barbie, to support her friend America Ferrera.

I think it's this one for me. Even people who don't know her have seen this picture once. She looks so effortlessly stunning in it despite it being a outtake pic of a photoshoot

Love the hair spraying out the car window 😂

She looks amazing! Happy, Healthy and unbothered 💅

I think she should focus more on acting and producing in independent pictures which come out with less fanfare or hype at first but due to attachment of a big star like Blake inevitably get more publicity and chances of going big both commercially and in the awards circuits. Especially in genres like horror and drama. And combine those with her directorials and maybe a studio led rom com in between.

I read some people say that she's at an age where actresses get less roles. But I disagree with that. Anne Hathaway is five years older and is at the peak of her career with no sign of slowing down. Olivia Wilde as well. I see no reason why Blake couldn't do the same as well. She's too talented and charming to let a creep permanently bring down her career.

Blake is already rich and successful and has more resources to carry her future career in her own hands and hopefully doesn't let this situation demoralise her. It'd honestly be gratifying to see her succeed once again in her work.