Rydus

Powered by Logic, Fuelled by Chaos!

[Expatriarch @Expatriarch_uk]

Reddit gets it wrong, again.

No settlement reached in Lively v Wayfarer. Looks likely to head to trial.

[andre @watsonperiodo]

Long story short: Sony couldn’t care less about Blake’s complaints about what was happening on set. They just wanted IT ENDS WITH US to be a box office hit. When Blake stood up for herself and her other cast members, they got mad because they thought they could silence her.

[Bunnirai @majunsang1]

미국 Liman 판사는 블레이크 라이블리의 주장이 그저 "사소한 문제"에 불과하다는 주장을 무조건적으로 받아들이지 않고 있다는 것입니다. 실제로 그는 "작은 일들이 모여 큰 문제가 될 수 있다"고 지적하며 직접적으로 반박했습니다.

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐆𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐲

At the January 22, 2026 hearing, Judge Lewis Liman did not rule from the bench on Justin Baldoni’s motion for summary judgment, but his questioning made one thing clear: he’s not automatically buying the idea that Blake Lively’s claims are just “small potatoes.” In fact, he pushed back directly, noting that “a whole bunch of little things can add up to a big thing”, which is exactly the kind of language that suggests the court sees at least part of this record as something a jury may need to weigh.

The other pressure point was spoliation. Lively’s team accused Baldoni’s side of using Signal with auto-delete enabled during a period when litigation was reasonably foreseeable, allegedly wiping communications tied to a retaliatory plan. Liman appeared focused on that timeline, and if the court believes evidence was intentionally destroyed, it can become a major credibility problem for the defense and a serious leverage shift going into settlement.

That said, Liman also flagged a real boundary issue: he seemed wary of any theory that would turn every director’s creative choice or script deviation into a jury question, warning that “that can’t be right.” The motion is now under advisement, with a written ruling expected later. Both parties are ordered to appear in person for a settlement conference on February 11, 2026, and unless the case settles or summary judgment is granted, trial is currently scheduled for May 18, 2026.

Important Disclaimer:
This is commentary based on publicly discussed hearing takeaways, not legal advice, and the court has not issued a final ruling yet.

[andre @watsonperiodo]

Colleen Hoover wanted the movie to be focused on female empowerment.

She said her biggest fear was the movie could be turned into a hot romance.

She wanted a female director to direct the movie but when she signed with Wayfarer Baldoni suddendly changed his mind.

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

Holidays break’s over folks.

Hope everyone had a good one, got some rest, and actually unplugged for a minute, but it’s time to get back to it. The case is moving again, and the next date on the calendar is a big one.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭: 𝐉𝐚𝐧 𝟐𝟐 𝐢𝐬 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐲 (𝐃𝐤𝐭. 𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟔)
Judge Liman has set oral argument for January 22, 2026, and this isn’t just housekeeping. This is the court hearing the big-ticket issues head on.

Wayfarer is pushing for the court to end or severely narrow the case early through judgment on the pleadings / summary judgment. Lively is also pushing for spoliation sanctions, arguing evidence wasn’t properly preserved.

Why it matters is simple. If Wayfarer wins big, this case shrinks fast or potentially dies early. If Lively wins on spoliation, it can damage Wayfarer’s credibility and strengthen her position going forward.

Unbiased read on the likely outcome will most likely we see partial wins on both sides. Some claims get cut, some survive, and any sanctions (if they happen) land somewhere in the middle rather than nuclear.

Either way, January 22 is the first real pressure test of 2026, and it’s going to set the tone for everything that follows.

https://t.co/AN7GVlzyOc

Important Disclaimer:
Not legal advice. Just commentary based on the public docket and filings.

[Expatriarch @Expatriarch_uk]

🚨Justin Baldoni's expert witness.. filed a report written by AI🚨

The deposition of Wayfarer's expert witness did not go well, revealing a bogus resume, a report written by AI, hallucinated citations, and sources the expert never read... 🧵

https://t.co/fFb4GqhHU6

[Expatriarch @Expatriarch_uk]

⚖️Judge Liman rules on Lively's motion for sanctions⚖️

His verdict? the motion is denied, except to the extent where he grants almost everything Lively asked for... 🧵

https://t.co/jjKICJZI8v

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭

In Docket No. 1144, Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled on Blake Lively’s motion for sanctions following a contentious December 15, 2025 deposition of defence expert Nicole Alexander. The Court declined to impose full sanctions, but it did formally admonish attorney Bryan Freedman for his conduct on the record and found that attorney client privilege was improperly used to block certain questions. As a practical fix, Judge Liman approved a one hour supplemental remote deposition and ordered the Wayfarer parties to cover the related costs and limited attorneys’ fees.

The issue began when Lively’s counsel asked about a pre engagement vetting call that took place before Alexander was hired as an expert. Defence counsel repeatedly instructed the witness not to answer, claiming privilege even though the conversation occurred before retention and involved basic background vetting. The exchange quickly became tense, marked by frequent speaking objections, interruptions, and side commentary, including remarks from Freedman, despite not formally appearing for the deposition. Judge Liman made clear that privilege is not a blanket shield in this setting and that opposing counsel is allowed to probe whether a privileged claim actually applies.

While the ruling stops short of punishment, it still matters. The Court corrected the record, allowed limited follow-up testimony, and issued a clear warning about future conduct. The message was straightforward: discovery disputes should not devolve into obstruction or theatrics, and misuse of privilege will not be indulged. It is a narrow decision, but one that sets expectations moving forward as the case continues.

https://t.co/ZRcZ6DyFxB

Important Disclaimer: This article is a general summary of a court order and related procedural issues. It is not legal advice and does not reflect any finding on the ultimate merits of the claims or defences in the case.

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

Hey everyone, just a quick post. I’m going to be going quiet for most of Christmas unless something genuinely major happens in the Lively v. Baldoni case.

At this point there’s nothing meaningful left to play out in public until January, and I’m not interested in hanging around just to fill space or manufacture noise. Some people will no doubt keep posting regardless. That’s their choice. It’s not how I want to spend this time.

This season feels like a good moment to pause and take stock. The wins this year have been massive. Hard-earned wins. And they didn’t come from shouting the loudest, but from facts, patience, and people willing to actually read the record instead of repeating the spin.

More than anything, I want to say thank you to all of you. To everyone who dug through filings, checked sources, pushed back on bad narratives, asked smart questions, and stayed grounded when things got messy. This year took real effort, time, and emotional energy, and a lot of people showed up consistently and in good faith. That genuinely matters.

I’ve also used this year to make my content better reflect the person I want to be. More information-driven, less reactive. More genuine debate, less nastiness. That shift wouldn’t have happened without the community around this discussion.

So now it’s time to step away for a bit. Be with the people I love. Rest. Celebrate the season, and celebrate the progress that’s been made. The case will still be there in January, and we’ll be ready for it when it is.

Wishing everyone a wonderful Christmas and a happy New Year. 🎄

[Expatriarch @Expatriarch_uk]

TAG's CEO Melissa Nathan's history doesn't just include Pitt, Depp and Baldoni

Nathan also worked for Hiltzik when he represented Jeffrey Epstein.

I'm trying to think what the common theme here is... 🤔

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

Baldoni and Wayfarer have had to hand over just about everything, and it's just so beautiful. Seriously, Christmas has come early!

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐒𝐚𝐢𝐝 “𝐄𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡” 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐢 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐲𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐫

In Dkt. 1125, filed December 18, 2025, Judge Liman stepped directly into the privilege fight, and the outcome is hard to miss. After personally reviewing the disputed materials in camera, the Court ruled that a substantial number of communications Baldoni and Wayfarer tried to withhold do not qualify for the privileges they claimed. Those documents must be produced, and the Court did not hedge or soften the message.

What stands out is how precise the ruling is. Large sections of the privilege log are ordered into production, with only two narrow carve-outs allowing limited redactions in specific message threads. That level of line-drawing matters. It shows the Court is not dismissing privilege outright, but it is clearly unwilling to accept broad, catch-all claims that attempt to shield ordinary communications from scrutiny.

The timing sharpens the impact. With a production deadline set for December 22, these materials are not being pushed into some distant phase of discovery. They are landing squarely in the middle of ongoing disputes and active briefing. Whatever is in those communications is now fair game for review, argument, and potential use before the Court.

Taken together, the order reinforces a pattern that has been developing for weeks. When confidentiality and privilege claims are tested rather than accepted at face value, they are being narrowed. The message from the bench is consistent. Discovery is meant to surface facts, not bury them. If something is going to stay hidden, the Court expects a clear and defensible reason.

https://t.co/LEr9u3CLel

Important Disclaimer:
This is an opinion based on publicly available court filings and is written for discussion purposes only. It is not legal advice.

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐒𝐚𝐢𝐝 “𝐄𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡” 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐢 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐲𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐫

In Dkt. 1125, filed December 18, 2025, Judge Liman stepped directly into the privilege fight, and the outcome is hard to miss. After personally reviewing the disputed materials in camera, the Court ruled that a substantial number of communications Baldoni and Wayfarer tried to withhold do not qualify for the privileges they claimed. Those documents must be produced, and the Court did not hedge or soften the message.

What stands out is how precise the ruling is. Large sections of the privilege log are ordered into production, with only two narrow carve-outs allowing limited redactions in specific message threads. That level of line-drawing matters. It shows the Court is not dismissing privilege outright, but it is clearly unwilling to accept broad, catch-all claims that attempt to shield ordinary communications from scrutiny.

The timing sharpens the impact. With a production deadline set for December 22, these materials are not being pushed into some distant phase of discovery. They are landing squarely in the middle of ongoing disputes and active briefing. Whatever is in those communications is now fair game for review, argument, and potential use before the Court.

Taken together, the order reinforces a pattern that has been developing for weeks. When confidentiality and privilege claims are tested rather than accepted at face value, they are being narrowed. The message from the bench is consistent. Discovery is meant to surface facts, not bury them. If something is going to stay hidden, the Court expects a clear and defensible reason.

https://t.co/LEr9u3CLel

Important Disclaimer:
This is an opinion based on publicly available court filings and is written for discussion purposes only. It is not legal advice.

[Expatriarch @Expatriarch_uk]

Precisely a week after Andy Signore appeared on Dana's stream to say his lawyers definitely don't suck, they just filed for an extension because..

...they incorrectly filed his appeal and need time to undo it.

*chef's kiss*

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

@Pusheen63581130 @Fashion_Nexus Well, Freedmans a crook, Stephanie Jones warned Baldoni against using him

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

@Fashion_Nexus @Pusheen63581130 I wonder if his seen the evidence now and has torn them a new one.

[Rydus @RydusHolter]

@Fashion_Nexus @Pusheen63581130 It seems they both that kept Steve Sarowitz in the dark, didn't want to scare of their main investor.

[Expatriarch @Expatriarch_uk]

Yet Baldoni's team continue to gaslight us that these are regular "organic" users, no bots here.

No surprise these show up the moment I post Jed Wallace's picture.