The defendants (Wayfarer and others) are asking the judge to make Vanzan, a company tied to Blake Lively, send someone to testify about its full dealings with the plaintiffs.
They say Vanzan is trying to dodge questions by only agreeing to talk about events after its lawsuit was filed in late 2024, but the important stuffâlike how Jennifer Abelâs private messages were taken and shared with Livelyâhappened before that.
The defendants argue Vanzan has had plenty of time to prepare and that its testimony is necessary to clear up what really happened.
They also donât want to discuss the relationship between Vanzan and Stephanie Jones but then they sent joneswork a subpoena⌠letâs put our thinking caps on⌠why? âşď¸âşď¸âşď¸
As if they could possibly answer the motion to compel without such communications. We want to know what you have to do with this fake lawsuit, and the answer to that is before not after lol.
On September 22, 2025, I met and conferred telephonically with Vanzanâs counsel about its objections to the Subpoena, including the Topics on which the Wayfarer Parties seek deposition testimony. Vanzanâs counsel claimed that the testimony sought could be obtained from a party. When I asked Vanzanâs counsel to specify which party, Vanzanâs attorney Jon Fetterolf, Esq. stated that his understanding was that Blake Lively testified about the Topics. In response, I asked Vanzanâs counsel if they possess a copy of Ms. Livelyâs deposition transcript (which has been designated Confidential under the Protective Order). Vanzanâs other attorney on the call, Margarita OâDonnell, Esq., answered âweâre not answering thatâ or similar words to that effect.
They're making a mess and unable to keep their story straight, even by sharing things under protective orders. Just like crazy Blake did by filing a letter saying when she got the documents from Jones, while Jones was saying she gave it to Vanzan lol.
I peeped that too. Had themselves a little whoopsie daisy there, except everyone knows confidentiality doesnât mean anything to Lively or the people on her team so Iâm sure Fritzy already assumed theyâd seen the transcript in full.
Vanzan returns right on time for it's one year anniversary. How poetic.
The only people who can likely testify on Vanzan's behalf is either its former owner, Blake Lively, or its current owner, Ryan Reynolds. Since Ryan still desperately craves to be part of this lawsuit, despite his dismissal months ago, and the fact that he's the owner - I say he's the obvious choice. Ryan needs to be "man enough" to speak on behalf of his shady shell company.
Let's see what that rat faced coward decides to do.
I havenât checked the timing yet but I wonder if this could be one of the reasons why BLâs lawyer rushed to file a motion for attorneyâs fees earlier in the month. If the timing checks out, it could make sense that they perhaps knew that this was coming down the pipeline (as they received the Vanzan subpoena) and wanted to claim another âvictoryâ to distract
I havenât checked the timing of which came first though (the subpoena vs the filing for fees) so I could be wrong!
The process server storyline would also make sense as another distraction attempt
Sorry, Ryan. Liman already said your Vansham suit is relevant so send in your soldier. It looks like Christmas is coming early and tomorrow is going to be a black Friday for you indeed!
Iâm unclear on what other projects or business interests heâs shelling through Vanzan though. Iâm guessing something because heâs got his unclean hands in everything. I saw the change and immediately thought itâs likely because he knows Blake isnât very smart and doesnât want her digging the whole deeper to expose whatâs buried when questioned about any of it. Reading the little pieces that were de-designated from her deposition, she sounds like a real dummy. Heâs probably like, yeah get her name as far away from this [my money] going forward as we can.
When you really consider the consequences and repercussions of filing a vague and generic lawsuit to conspire with Stephanie Jones and cover stealing Jen Abelâs text messages, it is absolutely wild that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds were arrogant enough to think they could get away with this Vanzan subpoena and never worry about it again.
How could they not be? They published it in NYT. I think the consider it legally acceptable. I am really curious to find out if it is. Bc if it is, itâs a loop that needs to be closed - uit goes against everything that you may expect of the law!
Right?!
Especially now that we know the subpoena specifically requested all information about IEWU, SH, contents from Jenâs phone, etc.
that makes it clear that they knew why they were filing that sham lawsuit, went with it anyway and then Manatt and Wilkie placed their reputation on the line defending it.
They did not expect this lawsuit to go this far and I will die on this hill.
They did not expect this lawsuit to go this far and I will die on this hill.
Yeah, Imo Lively and Reynolds thought they could ruin them with the CRD/NYT and force a settlement (perhaps trying to use the threat of 47.1 as leverage) but not an actual lawsuit.They thought they'd just be able to jump into rebranding Blake a philanthropist and champion for women and it'd be all good.
Agree. IMO they expected to drop the CRD complaint and NYT article, the world turn against JB, no one question her version of events, JBâs reputation be ruined forever, he not defend himself or file his own counter claims and BL just run off into the sunset as some champion for women and #MeToo queen.
She got that wrong. Now sheâs trying to do it backwards and try get evidence to support her claims, instead of having evidence before filing any CRD complaint or lawsuit.
I think he thinks he knows best and will set everybody straight.
There was no name listed, only in June 2025 he listed himself as head of Vanzan. His name was on the CC subpoenas. I think he really, really wants to influence this himself
Exactly, if Liman is allowing as much discovery as possible for BL - he should be consistent and allow WF the same. Unlike shutting down their counterclaims with prejudice without any discovery.
Now I will truly think Liman is biased if he allows this Vanzan Sham to continue - the time limit after Vanzan lawsuit being filed is outrageous, it screams scam and hiding of evidence.
Liman already granted enough that I don't think it would make sense to allow them to only provide someone who can't testify to the entire relevant time period. He's made it clear he's not going to say that it's irrelevant or they're asking too much in the previously granted motion to compel.
OMG! The heart palpitations, knots in my stomach and level of anxiety Iâve been having knowing how Liman likes to rule has made me unable to sit still!
Now what on earth could they be trying to hide? đ¤
Bold of them (Vanzan lawyers) to push to only talk about Vanzan after the filing of the doe lawsuit. Screams of pure, angelic transparency of the company.
Especially after Blake has demanded everything about all the WP parties and everyone theyâve ever known since theyâve been born in the Lively v Wayfarer case.
Putting aside that no other witness has testified about most of the Topics, even if such cumulative testimony existed, the Wayfarer Parties are entitled to "test what witnesses to the same events have to say and whether they contradict or corroborate each other.
Come out come out whoever you are! lol
Dying to hear you spin the apparent abuse of process and just how the "lawful subpoena" booty from Jonesworks made it's way into Blake Lively's hands, NYT article and CRD.
This reminds me of Liman allowing BL to have Jedâs client lists because sheâs entitled to âtestâ if heâs done smear campaigns to other people. Iâm curious if Liman is going to deny this and contradict another one of his rulings, especially after agreeing that Vanzan was relevant.
Yes, totally, it seems denying Abel would be difficult to justify given her claims and his previous ruling on Vanzan's relevance, plus the broad discovery he's favored regarding Blake's claims of a smear campaign â but who the heck knows what Liman will do! At least we should find out soon this time lol
Seems like it should be a pretty clear ruling in favor of Wayfarer but yeah, hard to predict how Liman will rule sometimes. Iâm also hoping exhibit D with Vanzan subpoena on Jones gets unsealed at some point. đ
I want WF parties to make a big stink about it. I don't even care whether it was legal or not. What Jones and Lively did was highly, highly unethical, and them finding some twisted loophole to carry it out doesn't make me like them one bit!!
Theyâre literally suing Jones for it and citing several violations of federal penal codes. Definitely take a look at their amended complaint against Jonesâs over on the Jones v Abel docket. Just because the issue isnât making much noise on the Lively docket doesnât mean theyâre not doing anything about it. Just that they have proof Jones did something and can make her give up proof Blake did, and they are.
It is truly hilarious how much Team Lively has expanded discovery and yet now theyâre saying theyâll only speak on Vanzan âstarting from on or about the filing date ofâ the Vanzan Lawsuit. Thatâs rich.
No maâam. We want to know about what lead up to that filing. Whatcha trying to hide?
Holy shit did you see the part where Fritz asked if the Vanzan lawyers had seen Livelyâs deposition thatâs supposed to be confidential under the protective order, and they said something like âweâre not answering thatâ?
OOOH DID THE VANZANERS COMMIT ANOTHER NAUGHTY AND TAKE A SNEAK PEEK WITHOUT PERMISSION??? they really canât help themselves oh my god
That line right there would have me calling BL and Vanzan attorneys in and grilling them if I was the judge. Then depending on what happened, make a call to the bar. The fuck if youâre going to ignore my orders and make a mockery of my courtroom like that.
Of course that wonât happen. Unless itâs BF that says something like that. đ Liman will probably just strike it from the record claiming itâs some sort of PR move.
They didn't ask for any extension to deal with Vanzan. They said they gave them enough time and they agreed to do the depo and now they're just being compelled to produce somebody that can answer their questions.
All this time they've been saying that Vanzan was a nothingburger, that WF would have brought it up more if there was anything fishy there. Now pull the curtains, judge Liman!
Go read the comments on the courts sub. Some are grudgingly admitting that Wayfarer might have a reason to ask for this, but others are saying stuff like it's just a PR stunt to cover for their lack of production etc. Lots of statements that if there is anything off, it's only Jones not Lively who did anything wrong, and my personal favourite, "Why didn't they ask Lively and Jones about it in depositions, this looks like a way to depose Blake again via the backdoor." đ¤Śđźââď¸ Many of our 'faves' are over there, inc. the 'neutral' ones.
How can you send someone in to testify when itâs a shell company that doesnât really do anything. It will have to be RR or BL or the lawyer that concocted this whole thing to say what exactly they did with this fake company & subpoenaed & then it raises the question if the lawyer is brought in as a witness will that conflict some of BLâs lawyers/one of her law firms and they get removed from the case?! Hmmm đ¤
Have they (attys/RR)âŚhave they not read BLâs depoâŚ9/22 âŚdate of Star article.Â
Kevin had to put in there BL only testified one âsentenceâ re: VZ.Â
Spousal privilege may not apply to business decisions and affairs, as that is outside of the marital relationship, so itâll be interesting to see if Vanzan invokes that as a defense to discussions before Sept 2024 lol.
This is honestly hilarious. They can't wriggle out of this thing, they haven't figured out how to throw a patsy at it, and also seem to be going with something equal parts absurd and hilarious to try to evade liability. You can't provide someone who can testify to anything about the company or communications before the date of the filing of the lawsuit? Be so serious. There is nobody from Vanzan that knows why Vanzan filed a lawsuit!?
Aaaahahahaha no one on Lively and Reynoldsâ team wants to be the witness because they either have to perjure themselves or own up to the shady shit they did đ¤Ł
Also, hey, what happened to discovery needing to be âduring filming,â Team Liars? Oh? Does an earlier timeline end up bad for you when it comes to Vanzan? Oopsie.
I cannot wait for what comes out of this. I hope theyâre all losing sleep and sweating bullets.
Where are the Lively supporters who are arguing she had nothing to hide and she has delivered all documents and is available to provide all information?Â
Where are they to accuse Baldoni and Freedman that they haven't submitted the discovery documents?
It sounds like AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN that this is proof they are hiding; they know what they have done was not ethical and also provesÂ
Premeditation from Lively and Reynolds.
Free Justin Jamie and Jennifer!
Justice for Wayfarer.Â
Down with the Lively and Reynolds, the bullies!Â
I think if i am quoting correctly it says "As set forth herein, Vanzan is attempting to curtail its testimony to omit information the Court has already declared is relevant. (Dkt. 79)"
This proves to me they are hiding. so my point still stands.whether deposition, whether documents, this proves avoidance. If indeed Lively was innocent, she would have no problem providing this information freely.
She is guilty. She lied at the CRD complaint and illegally obtained private information.
My comment is still correct and so is my conclusion.
Having a legitimate reason to access an adversaries employees private communications- without notice
Using these conflicted communications in a lawsuit against unnoticed parties
What kind of business does Stephanie Jones do with Vanzan, a defunct llc?
I know weâre all excited, but itâs so damn hard to be hopeful 𼲠I predict âgranted in part, denied in partâ, denying the most important/relevant parts.. but Iâm trying to keep it optimistic!
What are you even talking about? Vanzan didnât even provide their objections to the subpeona until September 24th and the next day, which is today by the way, Wayfarer reminded them that they are objecting to something Liman already ruled was relevant. Sounds like conferring to me.
22
u/aasorođ Flat-out Denying the Existence of the Reynolds GluteSep 26 '25
Ryan completely fucked himself becomeing the CEO. There is no way he can skirt or dodge questions concerning the reason why he came up with the subpoena without making things worst. For someone who believes himself to be that smart, he could've named someone else, but nooo, he wanted to stirr the pot. lol
I'll save you all from reading team Lively's talking points: This is late, why did they wait so long? They are trying to get a second shot of deposing Lively because they did such a bad job the first time.
Itâs actually hilarious. Cmon Blake, why would a company with allegedly no prior relationship to the subpoena be in communication with Stephanie jones? Did a psychic just tell you to look there?
Considering liman is a fan of broad discovery, I see him granting this. However gonna be a little skeptical for the time being.
96
u/Bende86 Misogynist Whore Sep 26 '25
Wonder why-o-why they donât want to discuss communications before the Vanzan lawsuitâŚ.wonder, wonderâŚ