Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
Published as part of our independent media and commentary work. See About Us or Disclaimers at the foot notes below for further details.
Author: Docket Updates
-
12/03/25 – SJ replies to JA’s Conditional MSJ
(Exhibits not available yet, will post after LIVE)
Court Listener Links
- #1049 – Jonesworks Motion to Seal (MTS) Letter
- #1050 -MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 938 MOTION for Conditional MSJ
- #1051 – SJ Declaration
- #1057 – Counter Statement to Rule 56.1
- #1056 – K Tahler Declaration and Exhibits
- Will index exhibits shortly
1056 Exhibits
- #1056-1 – Exhibit 1
- #1056-2 – Exhibit 2
- #1056-3 – Exhibit 3
- #1056-4 – Exhibit 4
- #1056-5 – Exhibit 5
- #1056-6 – Exhibit 6
- #1056-7 – Exhibit 7
- #1056-8 – Exhibit 8
- #1056-9 – Exhibit 9
- #1056-10 – Exhibit 10
- #1056-11 – Exhibit 11
- #1056-12 – Exhibit 12
- #1056-13 – Exhibit 13
- #1056-14 – Exhibit 14
- #1056-15 – Exhibit 15
- #1056-16 – Exhibit 16
- #1056-17 – Exhibit 17
- #1056-18 – Exhibit 18
- #1056-19 – Exhibit 19
- #1056-20 – Exhibit 20
- #1056-21 – Exhibit 21
- #1056-22 – Exhibit 22
- #1056-23 – Exhibit 23
- #1056-24 – Exhibit 24
- #1056-25 – Exhibit 25
- #1056-26 – Exhibit 26
- #1056-27 – Exhibit 27
- #1056-28 – Exhibit 28
- #1056-29 – Exhibit 29
- #1056-30 – Exhibit 30
- #1056-31 – Exhibit 31
- #1056-32 – Exhibit 32
- #1056-33 – Exhibit 33
- #1056-34 – Exhibit 34
- #1056-35 – Exhibit 35
- #1056-36 – Exhibit 36
- #1056-37 – Exhibit 37
- #1056-38 – Exhibit 38
- #1056-39 – Exhibit 39
- #1056-40 – Exhibit 40
- #1056-41 – Exhibit 41
- #1056-42 – Exhibit 42
- #1056-43 – Exhibit 43
- #1056-44 – Exhibit 44
- #1056-45 – Exhibit 45
- #1056-46 – Exhibit 46
- #1056-47 – Exhibit 47
- #1056-48 – Exhibit 48
- #1056-49 – Exhibit 49
- #1056-50 – Exhibit 50
- #1056-51 – Exhibit 51
- #1056-52 – Exhibit 52
- #1056-53 – Exhibit 53
- #1056-54 – Exhibit 54
- #1056-55 – Exhibit 55
- #1056-56 – Exhibit 56
- #1056-57 – Exhibit 57
- #1056-58 – Exhibit 58
- #1056-59 – Exhibit 59
- #1056-60 – Exhibit 60
- #1056-61 – Exhibit 61
- #1056-62 – Exhibit 62
- #1056-63 – Exhibit 63
- #1056-64 – Exhibit 64
- #1056-65 – Exhibit 65
- #1056-66 – Exhibit 66
- #1056-67 – Exhibit 67
- #1056-68 – Exhibit 68
- #1056-69 – Exhibit 69
- #1056-70 – Exhibit 70
- #1056-71 – Exhibit 71
- #1056-72 – Exhibit 72
- #1056-73 – Exhibit 73
- #1056-74 – Exhibit 74
- #1056-75 – Exhibit 75
- #1056-76 – Exhibit 76
- #1056-77 – Exhibit 77
- #1056-78 – Exhibit 78
- #1056-79 – Exhibit 79
- #1056-80 – Exhibit 80
- #1056-81 – Exhibit 81
- #1056-82 – Exhibit 82
- #1056-83 – Exhibit 83
- #1056-84 – Exhibit 84
- #1056-85 – Exhibit 85
- #1056-86 – Exhibit 86
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
@committothebritt A little sunshine on my road to recovery! 12/6/2025
♬ original sound – BrittPublished as part of our independent media and commentary work. See About Us or Disclaimers at the foot notes below for further details.
-
12/03/25 – Jonesworks Spoliation UNSEALING
(Working on listing all items with their Court Listener Links)
Court Listener Links
- #1046 – Declaration in Support of Motion
- #1046-1 – Exhibit 4 – 6/17/24 Correspondence – JH & Mitz Toskovic text about JH Timeline (TOSKOVIC_000000677; TOSKOVIC_000000678)
- #1046-2 – Exhibit 8 – Correspondence with counsel – Re: Jones v Abel Interrogatories
- #1046-3 – Exhibit 10 – 8/11/25 Search Term Agreement and Correspondence with counsel
- #1046-4 – Exhibit 12 – 7/26/24 Correspondence – SJ Text Msg re: “dark stuff” she told Tara Hanks re: MN (JONESWORKS_JB_000001142)
- #1046-5 – Exhibit 13 – 7/25/24 Correspondence – Text Msg with Tera Hanks and SJ’s recommendations (HANKS_000000016)
- #1046-6 – Exhibit 15 – 8/2/24 Correspondence and Scenario Planning – Text Msg with PR TAG Team (WAYFARER_000141577)
- #1046-7 – Exhibit 19 – 7/26/24 Correspondence – Text Msg between K. Case, JA re: email JA new email RWA to be above board (KCASE-000000585)
- #1046-8 – Exhibit 23 – 8/8-8/9/24 Correspondence – Emails between JH, Imeme Meziane, Laura Voglesong, K. Case, MN, Mitz Toskovic re: JW Invoice
- #1046-9 – Exhibit 28 – 8/14/24 Correspondence – Text Msgs between Tera Hanks, JH re: cannibalization from within the same side
- #1046-10 – Exhibit 30 – 8/13/24 Correspondence – Text Msg between MN & JA (NATHAN_000002237) re: JB hiring crisis manager
- #1046-11 – Exhibit 38 – 8/7/24 Correspondence – Email between K Case, JA, MN, JW (NATHAN_00000333)
- #1046-12 – Exhibit 40 – 9/5/25 Case Deposition (Filed Under Seal)
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
Published as part of our independent media and commentary work. See About Us or Disclaimers at the foot notes below for further details.
- #1046 – Declaration in Support of Motion
-
12/03/25 – JW Says Documents Lively Wants Are Privileged and Already Ruled Protected, Requests Protective Order
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
Published as part of our independent media and commentary work. See About Us or Disclaimers at the foot notes below for further details.
-
12/03/23 – Another mini unsealing of redacted docs (ALL Docs included / Will add all deposition pages to Depositions Page)
(Working on listing all items with their Court Listener Links)
Court Listener Links
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
Published as part of our independent media and commentary work. See About Us or Disclaimers at the foot notes below for further details.
-
12/03/25 – WP seek 2-day extension to Respond to BL’s new privilege-waiver arguments (JL GRANTED 12/03/25)
Court Listener Links
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
-
12/03/25 – JW Submits Court-Ordered Redactions and Seeks Continued Sealing of Client Information (Redacted Documents Linked in this post)
Court Listener Links
- #1039 – LETTER addressed to JL from Joel R. Glover dated 12/3/2025 re: Proposed Redactions of Exhibits
- List of court ordered redacted files
- #914-2 – Exhibit 27 – Email Re: Hiring of JW (SR 1.00000044)
- #914-3 – Exhibit 28 – Text Msg: JH & JW (SR 1.00000054)
- #914-3 – Exhibit 36 – Text Msg: JW & MN (STREET 3.000204)
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
-
12/03/25 – JL Order, Extension deadlines applies to Jonesworks case
(Just JL stamp/ Memo Endorsement on the letter we saw 12/02/25, see related post for details)
Court Listener Links
- #1038 – MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 1035 Letter
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
-
NYT Anti-Slap Complaint & WP Answers Summary (IMO – docket adjacent)
I’ll do my best to keep a running tab on this. I know this is helpful to some. Please read website disclaimers, key takeaways are: 1) we’re not attorneys, 2) this is not intended to be a legal analysis or legal advice, and 3) or entertainment purposes only. But please read the full one below. Okay in addition…. The summary prepared this page with the help of ai.
You will see a summary of NYT complaint per paragraph, when you click the plus sign it will provide Wayfarer’s (WF) reply.
1. NYT: Wayfarer filed a baseless lawsuit; NYT wants fees under Anti-SLAPP law.
WF: Denied; claims it’s a legal conclusion. Refers to the Complaint itself.
2. NYT: SLAPP suits silence free speech and harass publishers.
WF: Denied; says it’s a legal conclusion and refers to statute.
3. NYT: NY’s expanded anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous suits like Wayfarer’s.
WF: Denied; refers to statute.
4. NYT: NY’s anti-SLAPP statute protects speech in the public interest—even broadly defined.
WF: Denied; legal conclusion. Refers to statute.
5. NYT: News coverage of public issues is protected under the law.
WF: Denied; legal conclusion.
6. NYT: It is now well-established that news coverage of matters of public interest fall within the scope of the law.
WF: Denied; WP says this is a legal conclusion and the statute speaks for itself.
7. NYT: NYT is a New York corporation headquartered in Manhattan.
WF: Admitted in part; denied in part.
8. NYT: Wayfarer is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.
WF: Wayfarer admits the allegations in paragraph 8.
9. NYT: NY courts have jurisdiction because Wayfarer commenced/continued a SLAPP suit.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
10. NYT: Venue is proper in NYC because NYT’s HQ is there and the SLAPP conduct occurred there.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
11. NYT: NYT published the article/video on Dec 21, 2024; relied on BL’s CRD complaint.
WF: Denied, except admits publication + CRD complaint filing.
12. NYT: Wayfarer sued NYT on Dec 31, 2024 in CA state court for defamation
WF: Admits the allegations in this paragraph
13. NYT: Wayfarer filed the motion naming NYT in SDNY.
WF: Admits the allegations in this paragraph
14. NYT: Wayfarer filed their own suit on Jan 16, 2025; consolidated later.
WF: Denied except admits lawsuit was filed and later consolidated.
15. NYT: Amended Complaint was filed Jan 31, 2025.
WF: Denied except admits Amended Compliant was filed.
16. NYT: Wayfarer asserted four causes of action.
WF: Denied, except refers to Amended Compliant
17. NYT: NYT explains that Wayfarer’s defamation claim was based on the Times’ reporting about Blake Lively’s CRD filing and the online reactions to it, which Wayfarer claimed damaged its reputation. NYT says the Court rejected this claim because the reporting was based on public filings and not defamatory as a matter of law.
WF: Denied; refers to Amended Complaint.
18. NYT: Details their false light claim. NYT states that Wayfarer’s “false light” claim also failed because New York law does not recognize false light as a valid cause of action. The Court dismissed it outright for that reason.
WF: Denied; refers to Amended Complaint.
19. NYT: Details breach of contract and fraud claims: NYT explains that Wayfarer’s remaining claims—promissory fraud and breach of the implied covenant of good faith—were dismissed because Wayfarer failed to plead essential elements and the Court found no factual or legal basis to support them.
WF: Denied; refers to Amended Complaint.
20. NYT: NYT moved to dismiss on Feb 28, 2025.
WF: Admitted
21. NYT: District Court dismissed all claims with prejudice on June 9, 2025.
WF: Admitted
22. NYT: District Court held NY law applied to defamation claims.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
23. NYT: Court dismissed defamation claim for multiple reasons.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
24. NYT List Reasons why they say their case was dismissed: First – The defamation claim failed. The judge ruled that NYT’s reporting about BL’s CRD complaint was protected and not defamatory as a matter of law, and even the portions of the NYT article that referenced or summarized text messages (including ones not printed in full) did not meet the legal standard for defamation. The court found nothing suggesting NYT acted with actual malice or published anything they knew was false.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
25. NYT List Reasons why they say their case was dismissed: Second – WP had included a “false light” claim in their earlier lawsuit, but New York does not recognize false light as a legal cause of action. The judge dismissed it immediately for that reason alone — meaning the claim legally cannot exist in New York.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
26. NYT List Reasons why they say their case was dismissed: Finally – The District Court discussed the promisory fruad or breach of implied contract claims, held the claim was legally insufficient and had to be dismissed.
WF: Denied; refers to Opinion.
27. NYT: NYT spent $150,000 defending the baseless case.
WF: Denied the “baseless” claim; no knowledge on $$ amount.
28. NYT: NYT reincorporates all prior paragraphs.
WF: WP reincorporates prior responses.
29. NYT: Anti-SLAPP law requires fee-shifting when suit lacked substantial basis in fact or law.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
30. NYT: The prior lawsuit was a SLAPP because NYT’s reporting was public-interest speech.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
31. NYT: District Court opinion makes clear Wayfarer commenced and continued the lawsuit without factual or legal basis.
WF: Denied; Opinion speaks for itself.
32. NYT: Under Anti-SLAPP, NYT is entitled to its costs/fees and compensatory damages.
WF: Denied; damages not recoverable because suit wasn’t SLAPP.
33. NYT: By law, Wayfarer is jointly and severally liable for all damages.
WF: Denied
11 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM WAYFARER STUDIOS
First Affirmative Defense: NYT cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, because WF’s Amended
Complaint was not a SLAPP.Second Affirmative Defense: The NYT Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Third Affirmative Defense: NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.
Fourth Affirmative Defense. NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.
Fifth Affirmative Defense. NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unjust
enrichment.Sixth Affirmative Defense. NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Seventh Affirmative Defense. NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, for failure to satisfy a condition
precedent to commencement of this action.Eighth Affirmative Defense. NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by its failure to mitigate its
damages.Ninth Affirmative Defense. NYT’s cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by the 1st Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution.Tenth Affirmative Defense. If NYT sustained any damages as alleged in the Complaint, such damages are
attributable, in whole or in part, to conduct on the part of NYT, its agents, or its employees.Eleventh Affirmative Defense. NYT has not incurred damages as a result of any actions, inactions, or conduct by
WF. -
12/02/25 – Joint Letter Outlines the Full Calendar Leading Up to Trial
(I’ll update calendar shortly)
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
-
12/02/25 – WP File Answer to NYT Anti-Slap Case, WP call out NYT for “unclean hands” (Vansham perhaps????)
Court Listener Links
- #7 – WP ANSWER to NYT Anti-Slap Case
Related Posts:
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
-
12/02/25 – Florida Judge Sides With BL— Popcorn Planet Must Turn Over Everything
Tiktok Creator Content regarding this:
@notactuallygolden Replying to @Raqi00 ♬ original sound – notactuallygolden @bbwellactually Lively v. Baldoni – The Popcorn Planet Order (Part 1)
♬ original sound – bb | well actually@bbwellactually Replying to @saucynuggets Hi Saucy! Here’s Blake Lively v. Popcorn Planet (Part 2) #greenscreen ♬ original sound – bb | well actually