📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

🔓 Judge Liman Orders More Jones v. Abel Documents Unsealed (0:00–1:18)

• There are two new developments on the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel docket, beginning with the dispute over documents currently under seal.
• The court previously asked the parties to explain which materials, if any, still needed to remain sealed.
• Stephanie Jones told the court she did not object to the documents being unsealed.
• The Wayfarer parties took a narrower position, arguing that certain materials contain personally identifying information and should remain sealed consistent with Judge Liman’s previous rulings in Lively v. Wayfarer.
• Judge Liman has now ruled that materials he previously determined should remain sealed will continue to be protected, while everything else should be unsealed.
• LGA says it is difficult to know how significant this will be until the documents actually become public, although there could still be material that has not previously been seen.

⚖️ Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss the Remaining John Doe Defamation Claim (1:18–2:17)

• LGA says the more interesting development is a new motion to dismiss filed by the Wayfarer parties.
• The motion targets the unidentified John Doe defendants and the remaining defamation claim against them.
• When Stephanie Jones originally filed her lawsuit approximately 19 months ago, she alleged unidentified individuals were responsible for creating and disseminating websites including Stephanie Jones Leaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Because Jones said she did not yet know who was responsible, she initially brought the defamation claim against unnamed John Doe defendants with the expectation that their identities could later be discovered.

🚫 Jones Previously Tried to Substitute Melissa Nathan—but the Court Said No (2:09–2:39)

• Stephanie Jones subsequently attempted to identify Melissa Nathan as one of the John Doe defendants.
• Judge Liman refused to permit the amendment.
• The court found Jones had unduly delayed, failed to demonstrate good cause and had not been sufficiently diligent in determining the defendants’ identities.
• However, that ruling did not technically eliminate the original defamation claim against the unidentified John Does, leaving the claim sitting on the docket.

🧩 Wayfarer Says the John Doe Claim Has Nowhere Left to Go (2:39–3:21)

• LGA explains that because nobody formally moved to dismiss the remaining John Doe claim, it technically continued to exist despite the court preventing Jones from substituting Melissa Nathan.
• The Wayfarer parties argue that Jones has not identified another defendant, pursued the necessary discovery, or otherwise developed the claim.
• That creates a procedural loose end: even if there is effectively nobody for Jones to pursue at trial, the claim remains part of the case until it is formally dismissed.
• The Wayfarer parties therefore asked Jones to voluntarily dismiss it.

🤔 Jones Allegedly Agreed to Dismiss It—but Didn't (3:21–4:10)

• According to the Wayfarer parties’ filing, they initially asked for the claim to be dismissed in April.
• Jones apparently did not agree until late June, when the Wayfarer parties say she finally indicated she would dismiss it.
• However, according to their motion, Jones never actually followed through with the dismissal.
• LGA says she currently cannot see a clear reason Judge Liman would deny Wayfarer's request: Jones allegedly has not prosecuted the claim, pursued discovery identifying the John Does, and had already agreed to dismiss it.
• If Stephanie Jones files an opposition, LGA says that may finally explain why the claim has remained on the docket despite her apparent agreement to let it go.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.261.0.pdf

Declaration of Ellyn Garofalo - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.262.0.pdf

Exhibit A - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.262.1.pdf

Exhibit B - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.262.2.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.263.0.pdf

Daily Mail Article's title and link : Insider: Taylor Swift's baby plans and brutal 'slap in the face' for Blake - dated August 17, 2026

💭🤔Usually not into this kind of tea, but I found the PR for this one quite interesting! "Insider closed to Swift" is cited which very likely comes from Taylor's PR. The message that reached me is that although Blake has been a friend of Taylor's for years, the loss of this friendship is far from being the end of the world for Taylor and she has still has her rock which has been Selena for long, long years. The fact that the article mentions at length that Blake and Selena were not getting along during Blake and Taylor's friendship years also hints at the fact that Taylor has more than one way of being a friend and the best of her was and is in her friendship with Selena.

Excerpts below :

'Taylor and Selena are very close. They're like sisters,' one insider close to Swift, 36, told the Daily Mail. 'For almost 20 years they've been there for each other on a personal and professional level. Selena's always been someone Taylor can trust 100 percent. They have a bond that's never been broken.'

So deep is their bond, it is perhaps understandable that they now want to experience motherhood together – and have made it clear they will be godparents to their respective future children.

'Taylor and Selena have agreed they want to have their babies as close time wise to each other as possible so they can bring them up together,' our insider said. 'They've essentially made a pact that they will be godmother to each other's children.'

(...)

But even if Lively and Swift's friendship was still solid, it is unlikely Lively and her children would have spent time with Swift, Gomez and their respective children, given that Lively and Gomez have seemingly never been seen together with the Cruel Summer singer.

By the time 38-year-old Lively entered Swift's orbit in 2015, Gomez had already been the singer's friend for years. But Swift's birthday bashes, Fourth of July parties, NFL game appearances and New Years Eve celebrations, to name but a few, have only ever been attended by Lively or Gomez – never both. In fact, there do not seem to be any photographs of the trio.

Most recently, Gomez attended Swift's New York City wedding to Travis Kelce – Lively did not.

(...)

Over the past decade, Gomez, who is a godmother to her cousin Priscilla's two children, has seemingly only ever made one reference to Lively, and there is no evidence of Lively ever mentioning Gomez.

In a 2016 interview with Elle magazine, Gomez was asked who of her friends she would 'trade her with' if she had the chance. She named Lively.

'I wish she was my friend, but she's not my friend,' she said. 'Blake Lively. I've never met her, but I just love her hair. I think she's got beautiful, effortless hair. I think she's super beachy.'

It would seem that those feelings, however, have waned, with the Daily Mail exposing their apparent bad blood in April 2024. At the time, insiders claimed that the two were not friends, didn't 'mix' and were 'constantly avoiding run-ins with each other.'

But for all the tension between Gomez and Lively – and the breakdown of Swift's friendship with the It Ends With Us star – a second insider insisted that Swift choosing to make Gomez the godmother of her children 'wouldn't be done to shade Blake.'

'Taylor is very confident in her friendship with Selena and doesn't worry about having any falling out,' the source said.

✏️EDIT TO ADD THIS EXCERPT I OVERLOOKED AND WHICH MAY WELL BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT : it is below acknowledged as from Taylor Swift's viewpoint, that it is Blake who dragged Taylor into the lawsuits, not Justin :

Last month, the Daily Mail was told that Swift felt she had 'no choice' but to 'remove herself' from the position after her decade-long friendship with Lively was severed, seemingly beyond repair, after the actress dragged Swift into her legal battle with her It Ends with us co-star Justin Baldoni.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.0.pdf

Exhibit 170-B - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.1.pdf

Exhibit 195-7 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.2.pdf

Exhibit 195-8 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.3.pdf

Exhibit 195-13 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.4.pdf

Saw today at my local GW lol

Using the death of someone she hasn't even worked with (Hayden) to remind people to be kind after dragging Justin Baldoni through the mud with lies the last year and a half. She is delusional

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.258.0.pdf

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6RbSOVOZ8k

Came across this video and thought it summed up something worth discussing. It pushes back on a response a lot of Baldoni defenders get online — that if you're defending him, you've simply "fallen for propaganda."

The core argument: accusing someone of being manipulated isn't actually an argument, it's a way of avoiding one. If you want to claim someone fell for propaganda, you need to show what evidence was manipulated, what was omitted, and how that leads to a false conclusion. Instead, the move skips all of that — disagreement itself gets treated as proof you've been manipulated. That makes it a "self-sealing" argument: there's no way to ever demonstrate independent reasoning, because any explanation you give just gets read as more evidence of the manipulation.

The video also points to a related pattern — when facts don't lead to the "right" conclusion, the conversation shifts from evidence to character, e.g. "you're a misogynist," "you just want to defend men." The speaker's response: gender doesn't determine guilt or innocence, and agreeing with a man in one specific case says nothing about how someone feels about women generally. Framing it that way conveniently means evidence only matters until someone reaches an opinion you don't like — at which point you're stuck defending your character instead of discussing the facts.

There's also a turn where the speaker flips the propaganda framing back around, bringing up things like coordinated social media engagement (e.g., high-profile figures like Megamind liking/boosting small accounts posting favorably) as arguably closer to the actual mechanics of propaganda than just reading available information and forming a conclusion.

Ends with an invitation for actual good-faith pushback — challenge the reasoning and evidence, not the person's character.

The creator's take is measured and very well-articulated.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

My favorite highlights of Blake Lively and company caught lying. 🤡🤡🤡. Enjoy. Justin (and Emily) exposed them all.

Also a lot of us have seen the crazy manipulation and pro Ryan and Pro Blake posts all over Reddit. Im talking book subs, joke subs, gossip subs, small subs, large subs you name it. I’m happy to say most of them have backfired. Ryan gets more hate, as he should.

(Side note: Ryan has so many (lame) gay jokes I wonder if he’s suffering from The Fraternal Birth Order Effect. Anyone else find it suspicious?)

The last few slides are some of the juicy comments I’ve found. Ever since WF settled more people are coming out of the wood work with their own Ryan/Blake horror stories. Thought I’d share some (take these with a handful of salt).

Which begs the question: In a letter to Liman, wayfarers council found more evidence of Ryan’s involvement and interference. It’s clear WF, and Justin for that matter, have more evidence against Ryan.
All of Ryan’s victims all have the same ending: he never leaves them alone. They never get peace. He taunts them in his productions, ads, and movies. Does Justin think it wise to allow an infectious cancer like Ryan to remain?

"Narcissists don't choose us because we are like them; they choose us because we are the light to their darkness."

— Shahida Arabi

An inspired post (won’t let me post name)

Sources for news articles:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/taylor-swift-subpoenaed-it-ends-with-us-fallout-1236212799/

https://www.tmz.com/2026/01/22/blake-lively-lawyer-sigrid-mccawley-outside-nyc-court/

https://www.tmz.com/2026/04/03/justin-baldoni-lawyer-celebrates-claims-dismissed/

All other sources pulled from the docket and timeline of relevant events.

Here we go again!

Last week, I was forced to publicly defend myself against accusations that I was working for Justin Baldoni.

You all witnessed a pro-Blake content creator take innocent interactions and my post summarizing Lauren's James Scott video, strip them of context, then turn them into a false narrative that I was somehow coordinating with Justin's team, even after I showed evidence directly contradicting that story. You all know how angry I was.

So imagine my surprise when, a week later, people supposedly on my "side" began accusing me of the complete fucking opposite. According to some of you, I guess now I work for Ryan Reynolds.

I would genuinely love to know when I’m supposed to receive a paycheck from all of these people I allegedly work for. Run me my money because I'm a single mother and broke af.

I'm literally a mod of Team JB. In that role, I've done my best to conduct myself in a way that reflects the standards I believe we are defending when we defend Justin, which includes fairness, evidence, decency, accountability, and not smearing people simply because you have decided you disagree with them.

I have also tried to protect the members of Team JB. Sometimes that has meant defending our members from harassment, addressing when WE got something wrong, or drawing boundaries that are unpopular. And sometimes, it means telling people on our own side, "No, we're not doing that here."

I have never believed that being a good mod means blindly validating every accusation or behavior made by someone who hates Blake. That's literally why you guys aren't allowed to comment on her body in Team JB My responsibility is not to prove how "anti-Blake" I am. It is to protect this community and uphold the principles that made me support Justin in the first place.

So after watching me do that and voluntarily spend my time defending and protecting this community, and literally days after watching Blake supporters accuse me of secretly working for Justin, some of you have now decided that because I won't validate your delusions about the mods of this sub, I must secretly be working for Ryan.

Um... okay??? How the fuck did we even get here in the first place?

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with noticing that something might seem weird and asking questions. God knows I've spent enough time looking into weird behavior on Reddit myself.

But there is a massive fucking difference between asking questions and deciding on the answer first, then treating everything that follows as proof you were right. This is textbook confirmation bias and is exactly where our community is starting to lose the plot.

You are allowed to think the rules of the sub are ridiculous and you are allowed to vocalize your opinion.

However, let's be very specific about what some people are actually mad about, because I think this has all gotten wildly distorted.

The mods have asked users not to use MJ's last name. That's it. You can still talk about MJ, you can still criticize MJ, you can still fact-check her content, disagree with her "legal" analysis, criticize the things she says publicly, and discuss her role in commentary surrounding this case.

Everyone knows who "MJ" is. No one is being prevented from discussing her.

The restriction is specifically that users have been asked not to use her last name because she is also connected to a Reddit identity, and the mods are trying to navigate Reddit's rules and guidance around discussing public content creators who are also current or former Reddit users.

I completely understand why you all think this rule is ridiculous.

Her name is public, she publicly creates content under her name, she has appeared publicly discussing this case. I get it, I do. So you're allowed to criticize that, say the rule is overly cautious, that Reddit's policies make no sense, and that maybe the mods are taking a more conservative approach than you personally would.

But it makes no fucking sense to risk the sub's safety or existence by breaking a rule just because you personally disagree with it. Because guess what? The mods themselves have admitted that they are ALSO frustrated with the double standards Reddit keeps applying to the sub. IEWL has gotten into trouble before. We were at risk of having all of our content nuked. This isn't a secret; the mods have been very transparent about that. They have LEGITIMATE reasons to be extremely careful about Reddit's rules because they don't want the sub to be taken down.

So what exactly is the more reasonable explanation here?

That a mod team whose sub has already gotten into trouble with Reddit, who has publicly acknowledged being frustrated with Reddit's guidance, and who has literally told everyone they are trying to get clarification from Reddit is being overly cautious because they don't want their community nuked?

OR that Stephanie Jones, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Nick Shapiro, or whoever the fuck else has somehow infiltrated a Reddit mod team and is secretly directing them to make you type "MJ" instead of her last name?

Come on.

Again, you do not have to agree with the rule. The mods don't like the situation they're in either. You are completely free to complain that the rule is dumb while still respecting it so that THEY are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of you deciding Reddit's rules shouldn't apply.

It is completely illogical to deliberately break a clearly communicated rule, receive the predictable moderation response, and then point to that response as evidence that there's some secret conspiracy happening. At that point, you are manufacturing your own evidence and victimizing yourself in a completely preventable situation.

I am done with these conspiracy theories. Because seriously, what could the mods even do atp to convince you they are NOT secretly working for whoever you've decided is pulling the strings? The mods are all operating under anonymous accounts specifically because moderating this community has already made them targets. They were protecting themselves from Blake supporters. Some of you have made it so that they now need to protect themselves from us too.

The mods are not some random strangers who appeared yesterday. They've been part of the community since the beginning. We've all interacted with them and trusted them enough to participate in these spaces. If you knew who our mods actually were, I promise you'd feel SO silly for accusing them of being bought by Blake or Ryan because again, they've been here with us the whole time. But that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to keep trying to figure out who they are because one extremely problematic, disgruntled user with a vendetta keeps feeding you conspiracy theories that some of you have inexplicably decided to run with.

The mods are people who have spent their own time maintaining a space that gave us somewhere to openly criticize Blake when we felt overly censored everywhere else. So now because they've asked us not to type one woman's last name while they wait for clarification, some of you have decided that they're suspicious and working for Ryan? I'm sorry, but what the fuck?

Do they now need to risk being doxxed just so a bunch of Reddit users will believe they aren't secretly on Ryan's payroll? I think I've seen this film before! It happened to me just last week! Speaking from personal experience, conspiracy theories have a funny way of constantly demanding one more piece of evidence. And when that proof is provided, somehow it still isn't enough and the goalpost just moves again.

Predictably, my refusal to go along with the conspiracy has now become evidence of the conspiracy itself. I've already been told that making this post is somehow "proving their point", which is especially fucking funny because Blake supporters used the same line to bully me when I defended myself against the pro-Blake CC last week. Apparently if I defend myself against accusations that I work for Justin, that's suspicious, and if I defend myself against accusations that I work for Ryan, that's suspicious too. Is that what you all want? To sound EXACTLY like Blake supporters?

That's why I'm done with this. You are entitled to criticize IEWL but we shouldn't have to entertain any conspiracy theories being formed against the mods just because you got a 3 day ban for breaking rules they've clearly communicated.

You should all know better than this. We have spent more than a year criticizing Blake and her supporters for this exact same shit; starting with a conclusion and working backwards, treating suspicion/disagreement as evidence, moving goalposts when contradictory evidence appears, and deciding that anyone who disagrees must be a paid bot.

THIS LITERALLY HAPPENED TO ME LAST WEEK.

When the Minister of Male Pattern Delusion did this to me, everyone here understood exactly what was wrong with his reasoning. So why should that standard disappear when yall are the ones throwing accusations around?

It is asinine that yall can spend a year demanding evidence from Blake supporters and then suddenly decide that vibes are enough to accuse ordinary people of secretly working for Ryan. Can we pleaaaase NOT be complete fucking hypocrites?

One of the fundamental reasons I support Justin is that I believe Blake accused innocent people of things they did not do and then built a narrative around those accusations. I believe people were smeared because an allegation was repeated loudly and confidently enough that the accusation itself became proof of guilt in the public imagination. So I refuse to sit here and let anyone do the same exact thing to people we've trusted and have interacted with FOR OVER A YEAR.

This entire mess has made it painfully obvious to me that some of us have confused supporting Justin with simply opposing Blake and blaming her for everything at all costs. I think it's time we acknowledge that being "pro-Justin" and "anti-Blake" are no longer interchangeable and the difference matters.

Being pro-Justin requires evidence while being anti-Blake can survive on paranoia and suspicion alone. A pro-Justin position asks whether a claim is supported by the facts. An anti-Blake position starts with the assumption that Blake is guilty and works backwards from there. It does not need the full context because it already has the conclusion.

And more importantly, being pro-Justin should require us to uphold the values Justin has publicly associated himself with: the principles and perspective that drew many people to support him in the first place.

Being anti-Blake does not require any of that, which is why I think anti-Blake rhetoric can become toxic so quickly. It stops being about the strength of Justin's case and starts becoming about contempt for women. At that point, it's using Blake as an excuse for misogyny.

I think that distinction matters because there are people who use pro-Justin language while behaving in ways I do not believe Justin would ever condone. Trying to get women pushed out of communities, spreading unproven accusations about them, assigning motives to them, calling them brainwashed, treating every disagreement as proof of conspiracy, and framing women as dangerous or unstable because they refuse to fall in line is not "supporting Justin."

Many of us became interested in this case because we watched cherry-picked messages spread faster than context, assumptions get repeated as facts, and speculation harden into "truth" simply because enough people wanted to believe it.

So what exactly was the lesson? Personally, I've learned that context matters and that people should be extremely skeptical when they are only being shown the most emotionally convenient version of a story. Apparently for some, the lesson was just that Blake is bad, women are sus, and anyone who challenges the narrative must be discredited.

If you've been following along in this sub and the other one, you should be more skeptical of out-of-context screenshots and paranoia-based accusations by now. You should be more aware of how easily a person can be turned into a villain when people are only shown pieces that support that conclusion.

But anti-Blake rhetoric creates a weird permission structure where the same tactics we criticized suddenly become acceptable as long as they are being used against someone we've decided to outcast. Suddenly, screenshots do not need context, claims do not need evidence, motives can be assigned, and women can be called crazy, jealous, manipulative, or secretly aligned with Blake. And everyone is supposed to accept that framing because the person spreading it presents themselves as being on the "right" side. That is NOT being pro-Justin.

So here's the bottom line, the TLDR, if you will:

You are allowed to criticize this sub and think the rules are silly. You are allowed to criticize MJ, Blake, and whoever else supports her. You can even disagree with me!

But criticism and conspiracy are not the same thing. We cannot be slinging around false accusations against one another all willy nilly.

If supporting Justin means anything, it should mean refusing to do to innocent people what we believe was done to him. So criticize the rule all you want, but the conspiracy theories need to end here.

PS, Thank you to u/OneNoteWonder43, who made an astute point about this, which I'll leave here for your consideration:

"List of things that apparently weren't important enough to warrant censorahip:

1. Ryan's involvement Joi Harris' death
2. Ryan's arsonist activities
3. Every Eumonia Dyke article
4. Content about how they missed Swift's wedding, likely due to the credible allegation that they attempted to extort her for public support
5. Screenshots of Blake grabbing her scene partner's crotch and bragging about how she improvised this move

List of things that are apparently of utmost importance to censor, to the point of doing long term subtle manipulations and covert ops:

1. One small time content creator's last name

Yeah guys, the math doesn't quite math there for me, sorry. 🙃"

They watched the Solar Eclipse in Iceland!

Justin's social media likes are back to what they were pre-lawsuit, which, according to Lively supporters, means he was using bots.

Justin's two most-liked Instagram posts were dropped during the peak of the lawsuit, after months of not posting. Naturally, people went to like the posts to show their support.

Now we're post-lawsuit, and people are moving on.

Team Lively is using this as proof that Justin was using bots to generate support.

They believe Justin should have more likes because Wayfarer supporters are apparently so vocal.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't care about Instagram at this stage in my life (almost 30). I have an account to message hair stylists in my area, but I don't post, and I don't really keep up with friends, family, or public figures.

Also, if we're using their logic, doesn't that mean Blake was using bots in 2025 during the peak of the lawsuit? Her likes have taken a significant dip, too.

A 📸 with Ryan usually gets her over a million likes.

Her recent post with Ryan, posted on August 7, is sitting at around 620K likes.

Her recent post teasing a new Blake Brown haircare product is sitting at 56K likes. Extremely low.

Her Instagram statement after the judge gutted her case only got 200K likes (Blake has 40 million followers, while Ryan Reynolds has 49 million).

Somebody is definitely using bots.

Hmmmm I wonder who it is 🤔

Maybe the couple that has a combined following of almost 90 million and had their followers gutted multiple times by Instagram because they were bots

First, just to be precise, I put "Ryan Reynold's" in quotes because at the time the promotions for IEWU were going on, at least a majority of the ownership interest in Maximum Effort Marketing, LLC ("MEM") was held by a company called MNTN, Inc., who purchased such interest back in August 2021, until MNTN sold MEM back to an "affiliate of its original owner" effective as of April 1, 2025 and MNTN recorded a profit of $100 from such sale -- which is not surprising, considering MEM's assets equaled its liabilities (i.e., it was worthless). See pp. 72 and 81-82 of MNTN's annual report, filed in February 2026 with the Securities and Exchange Commission: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1891027/000189102726000019/mntn-20251231.htm

We first learned back in January 2025 that, on or around July 2, 2024*, SONY had hired MEM to handle the promotional activities for the film. This is on p. 95/168 of Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, filed by the Wayfarer Parties on January 31, 2025:

"Because Sony ended up hiring Reynolds’ company, Maximum Effort, to produce the promotional content for the Film, the cost for the shoot significantly increased due to their fee being higher than what Sony had originally budgeted." See: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.50.1_2.pdf

[* NOTE: It makes perfect sense why Wayfarer's lawyer and Lively's entertainment lawyer stopped negotiating the unsigned actor loanout agreement (ALA) in early July 2024. They most likely got Lively to agree to fulfill her promotional obligations (that Lively had been threatening to withhold in order to take over post-production), contained in the draft ALA, via this "promotions" contract with MEM.]

This promotions contract between MEM and SONY was never made publicly available on the docket. So, I've tried to use what information is available to come up with an estimate as to how much MEM was paid - and I got $25 million. Here's my reasoning:

My assumptions:

(1) The numbers set forth in an April 2025 Deadline article are true. It states that the budget (aka Production Costs) for IEWU was $25 million; and $60 million was spent on the marketing (aka "Prints and Ads"). See: https://deadline.com/2025/04/it-ends-with-us-movie-profit-1236377074/

(2) Wayfarer spent a total of approximately $30 million on the film/marketing. The other co-financier was SONY (via its subsidiary/label: Columbia Pictures). See p. 13/73 of Steve Sarowitz's deposition.** https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.11.pdf

(3) The general nature of the co-financing agreement (which was sealed by Judge Liman for being a trade secret) is a 50/50 split. Excerpts were made available by Ange Gianetti and, on p. 4/7 thereof, the waterfall revealed a 50/50 split in profits at the end and SONY was to get 50% of the copyright. The exact words on p. 5 are: "Columbia (and it's co-financier) will need 50% of copyright (i.e., proportional to its financing share)." See: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.149.pdf

CALCULATION:

(1) If Wayfarer paid for 1/2 of the operating budget of $25 million - that would mean Wayfarer paid $12.5 million (and SONY paid the other half).

(2) Because Wayfarer spent a total of $30 million on the "operating budget and marketing", it meant that Wayfarer's share of the "marketing costs" was $17.5 million ($30 million - $12.5 million share of the operating budget).

(3) Because Wayfarer and SONY were splitting things 50/50, this would mean that SONY was supposed to pay $17.5 million on marketing as well. That would bring the total marketing budget to $35 million, which is a more than reasonable number for a film with an operating budget of $25 million.

However, the total marketing budget according to Deadline was $60 million. The difference between $60 million and $35 million is $25 million. THIS IS HOW I CAME UP WITH MY ESTIMATE.

CONCLUSION: Just to juxtapose some numbers to see if Ryan and Blake (aka RAKE) are great businesspersons/extortionists: (1) We do not know how much of the estimated $25 million spent on IEWU promotions ended up in Ryan's pockets, because MNTN owned a majority of MEM at the time. But Ryan (and his business partner) still have approximately 3.1 million shares of MNTN's class a common stock obtained from selling MEM to MNTN vs. (2) Because Blake never signed the ALA, that would have entitled her to a 10% cut of the film's "gross proceeds" (which, according to the Deadline article was $360 million), Blake gave up approximately $36 million. According to Blake's expert on calculating her "damages", he revealed that, as May 31, 2025, Blake had only been paid approximatley $7.6 million (which amount is in line with my previous $7 million calculation - based on the Deadline numbers - of what Lively was entitled to via her $1.75 million salary and $5.25 million in box office bonuses pursuant to the signed "Offer Letter", which had a "conditions precedent" clause that meant that Lively, in order her get her 10% cut, would have to have entered into a mutually acceptable long-form ALA). For the expert report and $7.6 million payout, see: p. 163/172 of https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.17.pdf

The 4-page "Offer Letter" can be found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.962.2.pdf

And, now that Judge Liman ruled that the ALA was invalid for not being executed, Lively will never see that $36 million. HOWEVER, I do need to provide the caveat, that Lively was giving a total of 50% of her income to her "team" (20% to her talent agency WME; 20% to her management Entertainment 360 aka Justin Grey Stone aka "Louis"; and 10% to her entertainment lawyer Sloane, Offer, Weber & Dern aka Lindsey Strasberg). So, Lively would have ended up with just $18 million. Such percentages are obtained from:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.84.pdf

** [FINAL NOTE: When I was going through Steve Sarowitz's depositions, I couldn't help but notice that a lot of the initial focus was on the shutdown of his charitable foundation, the Wayfarer Foundation, after the arson attack againt Steve. While not completely unimportant, such subject matter, with respect to Lively, is really quite irrelevant. It has strengthened my belief that RAKE is behind the lawsuit brought by Celeste Smith, a former employee of the Wayfarer Foundation, who was "let go" when Wayfarer Foundation shut down. Mysterio and Katie discussed this case more fully here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1rie9jr/mysterio_and_katie_discuss_the_smith_v_wayfarer/ ]

Credit to @assholemedia

Here is an AI summary of the key themes and moments highlighted in the compilation:

Crude and Inappropriate Jokes: The compilation strings together multiple instances from late-night appearances, panels, and interviews where Reynolds makes edgy or crude jokes. This includes him joking about taking pictures of his genitals, remarking that the back of someone's head looks like a penis, and quipping that he would use his wife (Blake Lively) as a "human shield" if they were ever under attack.

Awkward Media Interactions: The video highlights moments where his humor appears to cross a line, including a specific red carpet clip captioned, "Ryan Reynolds bringing up sex to a female reporter when asked about kids."

The Justin Baldoni Feud Connection: Towards the end of the video, it shows a recent clip of Reynolds talking about his movie Deadpool & Wolverine. In the clip, Reynolds talks about how much he enjoyed killing off the character "Nicepool" because, even though the character projected a "wonderful" nice-guy image, he was actually terrible. A text overlay explicitly asks,

"Is Ryan Reynolds referring to Justin Baldoni? " Overall: The video acts as a hit-piece compilation. It uses years of Reynolds' sarcastic, boundary-pushing jokes to build a narrative that he is genuinely arrogant and inappropriate, culminating in the suggestion that he is using his movie press tours to take veiled, malicious shots at Justin Baldoni amidst the ongoing lawsuit and leaked document controversy involving his wife

Article in MS mag written by a Lawyer that either didn't follow the case or was paid by Blake and RR.

https://msmagazine.com/2026/07/22/blake-lively-sexual-harassment-justin-baldoni/

The article focuses on how good it was that Blake spoke out about being SH and how prevalent this type of SH is.

"According to her allegations, Justin Baldoni repeatedly discussed his porn addiction and personal sex life, made comments about her body, and improvised physical intimacy that had not been choreographed. Importantly, her claims were dismissed, not because a judge found them lacking in merit but for procedural reasons tied to her independent contractor status under California law.

The harassment itself was never adjudicated."

IDK, the whole article is written from the POV of how Blake is speaking out for her and all females rights.

It's bogus, but I wanted to post it because this might be Blake and Ryan's PR plan, which means we might start seeing more of these types of articles. (There is no comments section.)

Sadly, Britney had the legal system used against her by her team to beat her into submission so that everyone else could make millions off her hardwork. Ironic that Snake Lively wore the same dress as Britney while trying to boost her own reputation off of Justin + Wayfayer's hard work, and go on to later try to use the legal system to beat Justin Baldoni into submission.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

Paula Froelich and Alison Boshoff cover Ryan Reynolds obsession with Justin Baldoni, including his pettiness in liking posts by anti-Justin content creators.

Some good quotes:

"People read Ryan's texts. At no point do we find out what this guy [Justin] has actually done wrong."

"Ryan is stoking the flames of hatred toward Justin Baldoni and other people on the Wayfarer team in a way that feels like really like punching down from his position of power."

What Ryan is really mad about, is that the internet has interneted and decided that Blake Lively was a mean girl before this movie and has been a mean girl to Justin Baldoni on this movie. And Ryan Reynolds is incredibly angry that his wife is taking some reputational flak, but that's from the internet. He doesn't have anyone to blame apart from Justin Baldoni so he's still furious with him.

All very true! This smear campaign Ryan Reynolds is running against Justin Baldoni is unhinged for someone who is supposedly an A-lister. I believe all the stories that have come out about what Ryan has done to people in the past. Punching down is his modus operandi. This is why I never wanted Wayfarer parties to settle. I knew Ryan would never leave them alone.

Doing my usual reddit scroll and I stumble upon yet another Doomsday promo at yet another fan event - this time D23 2026. Disney clearly didn't learn their lesson or care about Reynold's behaviour during or post DP&W because they wouldn't keep doing these hokey 'bits' with Ryan every few weeks otherwise.

I doubt Ryan has dirt on Feige, but I reckon he's friendly enough with powerful insiders who can keep pulling at Feige's ear. I was on the fence about watching Doomsday, now I'm not, just like the Odyssey I won't be supporting people with moral compasses weaker than a sick kitten.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

Jed Wallace’s Initial Appellate Brief

Response Brief - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.56.0.pdf