Top Tweets for #Jonesworks
PastyFacedNimrod—@Expatriarch_uk was shouting “PERJURY!” when Shapiro & Bach withdrew from the legal saga involving #BlakeLively, Wayfarer, #StephanieJones / #Jonesworks, and Jen Abel.
Now that a new counsel—Richard T. Lobas—has been added to the Wayfarer parties, what will the legal charlatan be shouting this time... 😂😂
#LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel
That woman is quite literally making shit up as she goes. A little reminder: perjury is a criminal offense, and this is a civil court judge—not a prosecutor with the power to bring criminal charges. But apparently we’re getting legal analysis from the one and only @Expatriarch_uk, the self-appointed authority who has somehow mastered the art of knowing absolutely nothing about the law while explaining it with maximum confidence. Just 100% pure IDIOT!!
So @garymbaum calls himself an “accountability reporter.” That’s rich. LOLOLOLOL.
He loves talking about court filings… but apparently only the cherry-picked ones supplied by his favourite PR publicist, #StephanieJones & #Jonesworks.
Because where is the accountability when it comes to the allegations surrounding #Jonesworks (https://t.co/r7QfAqBOL6)?
Former employees have made allegations involving a toxic and abusive workplace, including claims of racism and discrimination, sudden or allegedly baseless firings “for no reason” and without warning, and alleged post-employment retaliation—including legal letters, accusations against former employees, and attempts to interfere with their subsequent employment.
There have also been allegations concerning invasive privacy practices, including claims that an employee’s email was accessed and that assistance was sought to obtain phone or text records. Other allegations have described mental-health strain, health scares, demotions, nonpayment or lack of pay, and broader dysfunction involving clients and industry relationships—including claims that certain people were blocked on social media and that relationships between clients and teams became hostile.
But apparently that isn’t worth the “accountability reporter” treatment.
Instead, according to @garymbaum, #JedWallace is EVERYWHERE.
Like one of my favourite Bond characters, Mr. White—played by Jesper Christensen—once said to James Bond: “Everywhere.”
Except here’s the problem:
The ONLY PERSON WHO ACTUALLY served #JedWallace was #BlakeLively.
And under oath, #Lively testified that she could not identify a specific article, post, or video authored by #JedWallace about her, nor could she identify a specific article connected to the alleged smear campaign.
What #BlakeLively actually said:
“Currently, I don’t read news about me or go on social media about me, so personally I don’t have knowledge, no.”
“A specific article or no, I don’t know a specific—I don’t know a specific article.”
“I can’t cite a specific article. … But to be able to name one specific article, if that’s what you’re asking, no.”
“With his name on it? No. … I’m not aware of anything that has Mr. Wallace’s name on it, no.”
“Not an article, no. It felt—no, not one article.”
And yet #EsraHudson and #MichaelGottlieb spent months advancing allegations involving an alleged coordinated smear campaign.
So where was the evidence?
There was no finding of liability against #Wallace, no admission of wrongdoing, no proven conspiracy, and no explosive courtroom revelation establishing that Wallace authored the alleged smear content.
Even #Lively’s own expert on “inauthentic online activity,” Aron Culotta, reportedly struggled to identify the supposedly false statements being amplified. Much of the online criticism he discussed instead concerned matters that were already public and widely debated: #Lively’s performances and public persona, awkward interview moments, her and #RyanReynolds’ involvement in script revisions, the decision to cross-promote a film about domestic violence alongside #Reynolds’ action-adventure projects and alcohol brand, her social-media activity during the Baldoni dispute, and renewed criticism of the couple’s #plantation wedding.
And then there is the part that seems to get strangely little attention:
What actually happened to #JedWallace?
His motion to dismiss #BlakeLively’s Second Amended Complaint was granted by a federal judge in the SDNY.
So if @garymbaum wants to talk about court filings, by all means—let’s talk about all the relevant filings, not just the ones that fit a preferred narrative. FFS!!
#LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel
In Leaked Audio, Hollywood Fixer Tells Billionaire Client of Plan to Smear Fiancée (Listen) https://t.co/ojo3KvHhWi
JA'S RESPONSE TO ⬇️
... propose that Ms. Abel’s renewed summary judgment motion herein be due on or before November 4, 2026.
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel
ORDER RE: JA’S CONDITIONAL SUMMARY-JUDGMENT SEEKING COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION FROM JONESWORKS
This order highlights that #JenniferAbel’s (JA) conditional summary-judgment motion for common-law indemnification from #Jonesworks may no longer be procedurally or substantively appropriate because #BlakeLively’s claims against JA have already been dismissed on summary judgment, eliminating the underlying exposure the conditional motion was meant to address. Judge Liman therefore requires targeted letter briefing on whether the motion should be dismissed without prejudice and potentially refiled to seek any remaining “full relief” consistent with the case’s current posture.
Pending motion is Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff JA’s request for conditional summary judgment on her second cause of action seeking common law indemnification from #Jonesworks.
Indemnification scope seeks coverage for any liability, expenditures, or costs Abel incurs related to #Lively’s claims against her in the main action.
Underlying claims against Abel included aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation under California FEHA, false light invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, and civil conspiracy.
Motion timing reflects that Abel filed the conditional summary-judgment motion on November 11, 2025, when #Lively’s claims against Abel were still pending.
Subsequent development is that #Lively’s claims against Abel were dismissed at summary judgment by an April 2, 2026 Opinion & Order.
Summary-judgment rulings granted Abel summary judgment on aiding-and-abetting claims and granted all defendants summary judgment on false light and civil conspiracy claims.
Current posture is that judgment has been entered in Abel’s favour as to #Lively’s claims against her.
Judge Liman requires the parties to submit letter briefs by 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2026 addressing how the April 2, 2026 ruling affects Abel’s conditional motion.
— Issues for briefing include whether conditional summary judgment is no longer appropriate because #Lively’s claims against Abel have concluded.
— Procedural option for briefing includes whether the motion should be dismissed without prejudice so Abel may file a new motion seeking full relief based on the case’s current status.
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
ORDER RE: JA’S CONDITIONAL SUMMARY-JUDGMENT SEEKING COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION FROM JONESWORKS
This order highlights that #JenniferAbel’s (JA) conditional summary-judgment motion for common-law indemnification from #Jonesworks may no longer be procedurally or substantively appropriate because #BlakeLively’s claims against JA have already been dismissed on summary judgment, eliminating the underlying exposure the conditional motion was meant to address. Judge Liman therefore requires targeted letter briefing on whether the motion should be dismissed without prejudice and potentially refiled to seek any remaining “full relief” consistent with the case’s current posture.
Pending motion is Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff JA’s request for conditional summary judgment on her second cause of action seeking common law indemnification from #Jonesworks.
Indemnification scope seeks coverage for any liability, expenditures, or costs Abel incurs related to #Lively’s claims against her in the main action.
Underlying claims against Abel included aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation under California FEHA, false light invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, and civil conspiracy.
Motion timing reflects that Abel filed the conditional summary-judgment motion on November 11, 2025, when #Lively’s claims against Abel were still pending.
Subsequent development is that #Lively’s claims against Abel were dismissed at summary judgment by an April 2, 2026 Opinion & Order.
Summary-judgment rulings granted Abel summary judgment on aiding-and-abetting claims and granted all defendants summary judgment on false light and civil conspiracy claims.
Current posture is that judgment has been entered in Abel’s favour as to #Lively’s claims against her.
Judge Liman requires the parties to submit letter briefs by 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2026 addressing how the April 2, 2026 ruling affects Abel’s conditional motion.
— Issues for briefing include whether conditional summary judgment is no longer appropriate because #Lively’s claims against Abel have concluded.
— Procedural option for briefing includes whether the motion should be dismissed without prejudice so Abel may file a new motion seeking full relief based on the case’s current status.
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
ORDER RE: JA’S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
… Abel’s motion for conditional summary judgment at Dkt. No. 938 remains live and is pending decision.
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
SO ORDERED...
SJ's sanctions motion will be fully briefed three days before the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment (MSJs).
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
MN’S LETTER RE: SJ’S SANCTIONS MOTION
Defendant—Melissa Nathan (MN)—asks Judge Liman to confirm
(1) the deadline for her opposition to Plaintiffs’—#StehanieJones / #Jonesworks (SJ)—sanctions motion and
(2) a 25-page opposition limit, while also arguing SJ’s motion is procedurally improper because it allegedly ignores the Court’s discovery-dispute process (meet-and-confer plus a short letter motion).
1️⃣ What the letter is trying to address
Two primary goals:
1. Administrative/clarifying relief: lock in a clear opposition due date and page limit.
2. Strategic positioning: preserve objections that SJ’s sanctions filing was procedurally defective (wrong format; no meet-and-confer).
2️⃣ Opposition due date
SJ’s filing/service date: MN states the sanctions motion was “filed and served on Saturday, September 18, 2026.”
That date is the starting point for their time calculation.
MN’s proposed deadline under Local Civil Rule 6.1(b): MN relies on Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) (14 days to oppose) and FRCP 6(a) (how to count days) to compute an opposition deadline of October 5, 2026.
Alternative deadline MN flags (7 days), and why she says it doesn’t apply: Local Civil Rule 6.1(a), which sets a 7-day opposition deadline for discovery motions. MN notes the 7-day date would be September 28, 2026, but argues the Judge’s Individual Rules override it.
3️⃣ Page limit (requested 25 pages)
MN asks to file a 25-page opposition under Local Rule 7.1, aligning its requested page count with the length SJ used: “confirm that Defendants may have twenty-five pages for their opposition pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.”
4️⃣ Alleged procedural defects in SJ’s sanctions motion
MN asserts SJ violated the Court’s required process for discovery disputes in two key ways:
(1) Failure to meet and confer: MN says the Court’s rules require a good-faith meet-and-confer before bringing a discovery dispute, and that SJ did not do so.
(2) Improper motion format (should have been a short letter motion): MN claims SJ should have proceeded by a letter motion capped at three single-spaced pages, but instead filed a full memorandum.
Reservation of rights: MN explicitly preserves her ability to raise these defects in the opposition.
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase #MelissaNathan #LivelyvsBaldoni #sanctions #BlakeLively
MN’S LETTER RE: SJ’S SANCTIONS MOTION
Defendant—Melissa Nathan (MN)—asks Judge Liman to confirm
(1) the deadline for her opposition to Plaintiffs’—#StehanieJones / #Jonesworks (SJ)—sanctions motion and
(2) a 25-page opposition limit, while also arguing SJ’s motion is procedurally improper because it allegedly ignores the Court’s discovery-dispute process (meet-and-confer plus a short letter motion).
1️⃣ What the letter is trying to address
Two primary goals:
1. Administrative/clarifying relief: lock in a clear opposition due date and page limit.
2. Strategic positioning: preserve objections that SJ’s sanctions filing was procedurally defective (wrong format; no meet-and-confer).
2️⃣ Opposition due date
SJ’s filing/service date: MN states the sanctions motion was “filed and served on Saturday, September 18, 2026.”
That date is the starting point for their time calculation.
MN’s proposed deadline under Local Civil Rule 6.1(b): MN relies on Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) (14 days to oppose) and FRCP 6(a) (how to count days) to compute an opposition deadline of October 5, 2026.
Alternative deadline MN flags (7 days), and why she says it doesn’t apply: Local Civil Rule 6.1(a), which sets a 7-day opposition deadline for discovery motions. MN notes the 7-day date would be September 28, 2026, but argues the Judge’s Individual Rules override it.
3️⃣ Page limit (requested 25 pages)
MN asks to file a 25-page opposition under Local Rule 7.1, aligning its requested page count with the length SJ used: “confirm that Defendants may have twenty-five pages for their opposition pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.”
4️⃣ Alleged procedural defects in SJ’s sanctions motion
MN asserts SJ violated the Court’s required process for discovery disputes in two key ways:
(1) Failure to meet and confer: MN says the Court’s rules require a good-faith meet-and-confer before bringing a discovery dispute, and that SJ did not do so.
(2) Improper motion format (should have been a short letter motion): MN claims SJ should have proceeded by a letter motion capped at three single-spaced pages, but instead filed a full memorandum.
Reservation of rights: MN explicitly preserves her ability to raise these defects in the opposition.
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase #MelissaNathan #LivelyvsBaldoni #sanctions #BlakeLively
So... now we know why #Jonesworks v. #KatherineCase was settled.
#StephanieJones contend that newly obtained communications, payment records, notes, and testimony show Nathan directed, edited, and funded defamatory websites targeting #Jones while repeatedly denying involvement under oath.
URL (MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT MELISSA NATHAN FOR DISCOVERY MISCONDUCT): ⬇️
https://t.co/DDc3O1Zg5l
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
ORDER RE: JA’S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
… Abel’s motion for conditional summary judgment at Dkt. No. 938 remains live and is pending decision.
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
#StephanieJones settled the case against #KatherineCase and then Abel seeks confirmation that the court’s general motion-closing order DID NOT terminate her still-unresolved indemnification claim & pending conditional summary judgment motion against non-settling party #Jonesworks.
Cross-claim for indemnification was filed by Abel against #Jonesworks on March 20, 2025.
Reasserted indemnification claim was included again in Abel’s answers to #Lively’s First and Second Amended Complaints.
Conditional summary judgment motion against #Jonesworks was filed by Abel on November 11, 2025.
Bifurcation order on December 23, 2025 required Abel’s third-party claims against #Jonesworks to be tried separately from #Lively’s claims against Abel.
Settlement agreement on May 7, 2026 resolved #Lively’s claims against the “Wayfarer Parties.”
Non-party status applied to #Jonesworks, which was not a party to the settlement agreement.
Release carve-out expressly excluded #Jonesworks & #StephanieJones from the settling parties’ mutual releases.
... therefore
This clarification request 👇 argues that because #Jonesworks was not part of the stipulation & was excluded from releases, Abel’s summary judgment motion should remain pending on her third-party claim.
URL (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF MAY 7, 2026 RESOLVING LIVELY'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE WAYFARER PARTIES): ⬇️
https://t.co/rBNvdf08h6
#Jonesworks #StephanieJones #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
THE SELF-EXPLANATORY VIDEO ABOUT ⬇️
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #KatherineCase #JonesworksvsCase #JonesvsAbel
So... now we know why #Jonesworks v. #KatherineCase was settled.
#StephanieJones contend that newly obtained communications, payment records, notes, and testimony show Nathan directed, edited, and funded defamatory websites targeting #Jones while repeatedly denying involvement under oath.
URL (MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT MELISSA NATHAN FOR DISCOVERY MISCONDUCT): ⬇️
https://t.co/DDc3O1Zg5l
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
So... now we know why #Jonesworks v. #KatherineCase was settled.
#StephanieJones contend that newly obtained communications, payment records, notes, and testimony show Nathan directed, edited, and funded defamatory websites targeting #Jones while repeatedly denying involvement under oath.
URL (MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT MELISSA NATHAN FOR DISCOVERY MISCONDUCT): ⬇️
https://t.co/DDc3O1Zg5l
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
Agreed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice has been entered in the SDNY in Jonesworks LLC v. Katherine Case, Case No. 1:26-cv-07685.
... states the parties, through counsel, “have reached a settlement of all claims asserted by Plaintiff—#Jonesworks against #KatherineCase” in this action.
#Jonesworks #StephanieJones #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase #LivelyvsBaldoni
Agreed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice has been entered in the SDNY in Jonesworks LLC v. Katherine Case, Case No. 1:26-cv-07685.
... states the parties, through counsel, “have reached a settlement of all claims asserted by Plaintiff—#Jonesworks against #KatherineCase” in this action.
#Jonesworks #StephanieJones #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase #LivelyvsBaldoni
So, #Jonesworks vs. #KatherineCase has been deemed related to #Jones vs. #Abel and landed in Judge Liman’s orbit—before being handed off to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, his right hand, who also handled settlement negotiations in the #BlakeLively vs. #Wayfarer matter.
Hmmm... Judge Liman has apparently had enough of the smear-machine litigation genre for one docket. 👨🏼⚖️👨🏼⚖️
#Jonesworks #StephanieJones #JonesworksvsCase #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel
So, #Jonesworks vs. #KatherineCase has been deemed related to #Jones vs. #Abel and landed in Judge Liman’s orbit—before being handed off to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, his right hand, who also handled settlement negotiations in the #BlakeLively vs. #Wayfarer matter.
Hmmm... Judge Liman has apparently had enough of the smear-machine litigation genre for one docket. 👨🏼⚖️👨🏼⚖️
#Jonesworks #StephanieJones #JonesworksvsCase #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel
#KatherineCase asked to remove Jonesworks LLC’s New York Supreme Court action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
#KatherineCase related-case statement connects the newly filed action against her with the pending #Jones and #Jonesworks litigation.
Related-case filing: links it to an earlier case, Stephanie Jones, Jonesworks LLC v. Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, LLC, John Does 1-10 (25-cv-779).
Trial schedule sets the earlier Jones/Jonesworks case for trial in February 2027.
Core allegations (earlier case) center on claims that Abel and Nathan conspired to steal Jones/Jonesworks clients, that Abel retained confidential business information, and that Nathan and Abel disparaged Jones/Jonesworks.
Business Insider angle (earlier case) includes allegations that Nathan and Abel solicited statements for a “Business Insider” story and for websites about Jones and Jonesworks.
Key ruling highlights a March 26, 2026 decision by Judge Liman denying Jones’ motion to amend the complaint as critical to the earlier case.
Denied defendant addition reflects Judge Liman’s denial of adding/naming Nathan as a “Doe” defendant in a defamation claim.
Denied new claim reflects Judge Liman’s denial of adding a tortious interference with prospective business relations claim against Nathan.
Employment transition (new case) alleges Case left Jonesworks and then worked for Nathan and The Agency Group, where Nathan was CEO.
Defamation focus (new case) asserts that, although framed as breach of contract, the new case largely concerns alleged defamatory statements by Case published in the referenced “Business Insider” article and in the referenced websites.
Overlap with earlier themes ties the new case’s defamation allegations to the same article and websites already at issue in the pending case.
➜ Alleges Case took clients and/or used confidential materials from her Jonesworks employment to divert clients.
➜ Links the alleged client diversion by Case to the same time period when Jones/Jonesworks contends Abel and Nathan were doing similar conduct in the original action.
Well... Judge Liman will be so pleased… 🤓🤓
URL (CASE'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL): ⬇️
https://t.co/5NwndlAm1x
URL (CASE'S STATEMENT OF RELATEDNESS): ⬇️
https://t.co/J1x7A18OcC
#BlakeLively #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
Stephanie Jones to Katherine Case: Give Me the Documents—or I’ll Sue You.
On October 15, 2025 #Jonesworks threatened that #KatherineCase might be named as a defendant in an amended complaint, and suggested that cooperation could avoid that outcome. 🤔🤔
… “she remains potentially subject to serious charges of spoliation based on her under oath testimony, and may be subject to being named as a defendant in any amended complaint that Jonesworks may file as a now-identified Doe defendant or otherwise.”
“We therefore write in the spirit of cooperation to avoid Court intervention on this matter and to avoid the need to formally name Ms. Case in a lawsuit.”
What documents #StephanieJones requested. 👇🏽
#BlakeLively #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
Jonesworks’ Complaint is every bit as broad—and just as conspicuously devoid of specifics—as #BlakeLively’s #Vanzan Complaint.
... and the real reason why #StephanieJones filed this 🤔🤔
Jonesworks’ complaint relies on broad allegations with few specific facts tying #KatherineCase (KC) to identifiable acts, recipients, dates, or causation, and because some claims may face enforceability and proof challenges under New York law.
Lack of specific “who/what/when” details:
— #Jonesworks alleges KC used confidential information, disparaged #Jonesworks, and tried to poach clients, but she provides few concrete details such as which clients, what specific statements, what exact confidential documents, or what dates/communications beyond general time references like “Spring of 2024.”
— #Jonesworks references communications over Signal and says her efforts were “ultimately unsuccessful” at covering tracks, but it does not identify preserved messages, senders/recipients, or content within the pleading itself.
Limited detail connecting alleged acts to measurable damages:
— #Jonesworks alleges “reputational damage” and “lost client accounts,” but does not specify which accounts were lost, when, or how those losses were proximately caused by KC's conduct rather than other market factors or independent client decisions.
Two-year non-solicitation:
— #Jonesworks asserts KC “worked to persuade” clients and was “successful,” but it does not identify the specific client relationships and conduct that constitute solicitation.
“No publication” clause not time-limited:
— Really… a lifelong gag on discussing workplace experiences… I don’t think so. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
Non-disparagement tied to communications with media:
— #Jonesworks does not quote any specific disparaging statement allegedly made by KC, which can make breach harder to prove and can raise disputes over whether statements were opinion, substantially true, or outside the clause’s scope.
Heavy reliance on the Business Insider sourcing:
— #Jonesworks alleges KC provided confidential client lists/communications to a Business Insider author and that the article contained internal stories “that could only have come” from a former employee like KC… multiple sources could have provided similar information, and #Jonesworks does not identify exactly what content in the article is traceable to KC versus other sources.
Looking at the attached pics, quite a few #Jonesworks employees seem to have their own stories to tell about what it was really like working there. Clearly, the workplace culture left a laaasting impression.
☑️ Discrimination & harassment:
— Racism and diversity-related issues were cited as reasons for leaving and as workplace experiences.
— Reports of harassment linked to departures and after employees left.
☑️Abusive & toxic work environment:
— Abuse and toxic workplace dynamics were repeatedly referenced.
— Verbal abuse was specifically mentioned.
☑️ Firings, retaliation & invasive behaviour
— Employees described being fired without warning or for no reason.
— Allegations of retaliation after termination, including: Being sent legal letters after being fired. False accusations and being harassed after leaving.
— A severe incident was described involving alleged invasive monitoring, including going through an employee’s email and seeking phone/text records.
☑️ Health & personal-life impacts
— Mental health impacts and “personal issues” were cited as part of the work experience.
— Health scares/issues were mentioned in connection with the workplace.
— Pressure involving major personal disruption, including being forced to move across the country.
☑️ Compensation & payment issues
— Lack of pay and demotion were mentioned as workplace problems.
— A recruiter allegedly was never paid.
☑️ Client/account-related workplace stress
— Employees referenced client issues and difficult client-team interactions connected to the work environment.
URL (PROBLEMS EMPLOYEES EXPERIENCED WORKING FOR JONESWORKS): ⬇️
https://t.co/bBiWNteseu
#BlakeLively #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
#KatherineCase asked to remove Jonesworks LLC’s New York Supreme Court action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
#KatherineCase related-case statement connects the newly filed action against her with the pending #Jones and #Jonesworks litigation.
Related-case filing: links it to an earlier case, Stephanie Jones, Jonesworks LLC v. Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, LLC, John Does 1-10 (25-cv-779).
Trial schedule sets the earlier Jones/Jonesworks case for trial in February 2027.
Core allegations (earlier case) center on claims that Abel and Nathan conspired to steal Jones/Jonesworks clients, that Abel retained confidential business information, and that Nathan and Abel disparaged Jones/Jonesworks.
Business Insider angle (earlier case) includes allegations that Nathan and Abel solicited statements for a “Business Insider” story and for websites about Jones and Jonesworks.
Key ruling highlights a March 26, 2026 decision by Judge Liman denying Jones’ motion to amend the complaint as critical to the earlier case.
Denied defendant addition reflects Judge Liman’s denial of adding/naming Nathan as a “Doe” defendant in a defamation claim.
Denied new claim reflects Judge Liman’s denial of adding a tortious interference with prospective business relations claim against Nathan.
Employment transition (new case) alleges Case left Jonesworks and then worked for Nathan and The Agency Group, where Nathan was CEO.
Defamation focus (new case) asserts that, although framed as breach of contract, the new case largely concerns alleged defamatory statements by Case published in the referenced “Business Insider” article and in the referenced websites.
Overlap with earlier themes ties the new case’s defamation allegations to the same article and websites already at issue in the pending case.
➜ Alleges Case took clients and/or used confidential materials from her Jonesworks employment to divert clients.
➜ Links the alleged client diversion by Case to the same time period when Jones/Jonesworks contends Abel and Nathan were doing similar conduct in the original action.
Well... Judge Liman will be so pleased… 🤓🤓
URL (CASE'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL): ⬇️
https://t.co/5NwndlAm1x
URL (CASE'S STATEMENT OF RELATEDNESS): ⬇️
https://t.co/J1x7A18OcC
#BlakeLively #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #JonesworksvsCase
The last remaining bits from #VancityDimwit’s bucket of dumb-dumb juice should be unsealed. Surely we’ve waited long enough for the release of his concentrated nonsense & nastiness. 🥳🥳
#BlakeLively #RyanReynolds #LivelyvsBaldoni #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel
I've said this before, but apparently some people prefer not to listen.
Judge Liman never ruled on those extra-nasty filings from #VancityDimwit.
Here we are again. Judge Liman's order from yesterday addresses Dkt. #979. That filing—the Sealing Letter Motion—concerns Dkt. #982, Bryan Freedman's November 18, 2025 Letter Response in Opposition to the Letter Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Rule 11 Motions filed by #MichaelGottlieb. It also relates to Dkt. #983, Freedman's corresponding Declaration containing the nasty fillings from #VancityDimwit.
It really isn't complicated. Sometimes, it really does help to pay attention to what Judge Liman's orders actually say—and, more importantly, to read them.
Have a fab weekend / xoxo
#BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni #RyanReynolds #JustinBaldoni
#Lively & #Reynolds: #VANZAN SUBPOENA
The subpoena of @blakelively (BL) & her hubby, #VancityDimwit's (RR) is a New York Supreme Court subpoena duces tecum directing #StephanieJones / #Jonesworks, LLC to produce a wide range of electronic documents & communications from December 1, 2022 to the present, largely focused on BL, RR, their affiliated companies, and materials concerning alleged sexual harassment/retaliation and related marketing/PR and retaliatory disparagement efforts connected to the film It Ends With Us.
1️⃣ Procedural purpose
Court, case & recipient:
— Issued in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, in Index No. 655130/2024.
— Directed TO: #StephanieJones, #Jonesworks, LLC, served "c/o Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan LLP."
Production command, date & enforcement:
— Commands production at #ManattPhelpsPhillips, LLP, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036, by October 21, 2024.
— Expressly warns that failure to comply is punishable as contempt of court.
2️⃣ Scope of the subpoena
"Documents" includes extensive electronic content (especially from a phone):
— "Documents" is defined in the broadest sense, expressly including electronic records "in Your possession, custody or control from a cellular telephone," such as texts/IMs, emails and attachments, chats and chat logs across apps, plus photos, recordings, browser history, and location data.
"Communications" includes nearly any transmission of information:
— "Communication" includes face-to-face meetings, phone calls, writings, email, IM/text, voicemails, screenshots, and chat logs across many third-party platforms.
Targeted people, entities & subject matter:
— Who "You" includes: "You/Your" covers #Jonesworks, LLC and its past or present employees, representatives, or agents, explicitly including #StephanieJones.
— Named individuals & related businesses:
"#Lively" = #BlakeLively plus her employees/agents.
"#Reynolds" = #RyanReynolds plus his employees/agents.
"Lively/ReynoldsCompanies" includes affiliated/related companies "including but not limited to" #BettyBuzz, #FamilyHive LLC d/b/a #BlakeBrownBeauty, #AviationGin, #MintMobile, and #MaximumEffortProductions, plus their personnel.
— Defined "Film": The "Film" is defined as #ItEndsWithUs, released August 2024, starring #BlakeLively and #JustinBaldoni.
3️⃣ What must be produced
Category 1: All materials "concerning" #Lively, #Reynolds & affiliates:
— All documents and communications concerning #Lively, #Reynolds, their families, and/or the #Lively #Reynolds Companies.
Categories 2–4: Misconduct allegations & responses:
— Documents/communications concerning instances of actual/apparent inappropriate conduct involving sexual harassment or retaliation tied to the Film's production/development/marketing/publicity/PR.
— Documents/communications concerning allegations of such conduct.
— Documents/communications concerning investigations or other responses to those allegations.
Categories 5–6: Marketing/PR & "retaliatory disparagement" narratives:
— Documents/communications about the Film's marketing and publicity or press, including those "related to retaliatory efforts to disparage" #Lively, #Reynolds and their affiliates (including connected to reporting of harassment or anticipating public disclosure).
— Documents/communications (re categories 1–5) about retaliatory actions taken in anticipation of public disclosures/claims, allegedly intended to discredit, undermine credibility, or otherwise harm the individuals/affiliates.
4️⃣ Timeframe & data source focus
Default date range: Unless a request states otherwise, it covers December 1, 2022 through the present.
Cell-phone collected records: The subpoena states it concerns "any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications…collected from a cellular telephone."
5️⃣ Compliance
Duty to search & partial production:
— #Jonesworks must conduct a reasonable investigation to locate responsive materials.
— If responsive documents cannot be located "in full," it must produce what can be found and provide detailed explanations of efforts and why the remainder cannot be produced.
Lost/destroyed documents protocol:
— If responsive documents were destroyed/lost/transferred/disposed, it requests a detailed list including description, dates, recipients, custodians, and recovery efforts.
Continuing obligation:
— The subpoena is "continuing": if additional responsive documents are later found, they must be produced.
Objections & privilege:
— If objecting, #Jonesworks must still produce what is not objected to and state specific grounds for objections.
— If withholding for privilege, a CPLR 3122 notice/privilege log is required with detailed metadata (date, authors, recipients, subject matter, basis, length, and linked requests).
#BlakeLively #RyanReynolds #Vanzan #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #NewYorkTimes #nytimes
BL: DEPOSITION BITS ABOUT #VANZAN
@blakelively's (BL) deposition bits primarily address
(1) #Lively's "understanding" that Wayfarer defendants contributed to negative press about her;
(2) how #Lively first learned about and then obtained the "#Jonesworks documents," and
(3) the timeline and process by which those documents were acquired and reviewed by #Lively.
FYI: Multiple questions trigger objections, including explicit instruction not to answer to the extent it calls for attorney-client privileged communications.
1️⃣ BL's "understanding" of negative-story contributions and the non-privileged basis
— BL is asked whether she knows anything Melissa Nathan did "to contribute to negative stories coming out about" her, and she answers: "I have an understanding, yes."
— When asked where that understanding comes from, there is a privilege objection, but BL testifies there are non-privileged elements: "Documents."
— She identifies the types of documents as: "Text messages, emails."
2️⃣ Identification of the "Jonesworks documents"
— When asked if BL's referring to documents obtained from #JenniferAbel's phone, BL answers: "The Jonesworks documents."
3️⃣ How BL says she first learned about the "Jonesworks documents"
Not from her publicist, #LeslieSloane, but from #AshleyAvignone:
— BL is asked whether #LeslieSloane called her with information about a smear campaign; she responds: "She did not."
— Asked whether BL learned from #LeslieSloane that there were text messages on #JenniferAbel's phone, she answers: "No."
— Asked who BL learned it from, she answers: "#AshleyAvignon."
— BL describes Avignone as: "She's a friend of mine."
Timing & medium of the initial communication:
— When asked when Avignone told her, BL answers: "Late August of 2024."
— When asked whether it was in writing or by telephone, she answers: "On the phone."
BL testifies that Avignone told her #StephanieJones was trying to reach her and that Jones had:
— "a phone which contains the most disturbing messages she’s ever read in her 20 to 30-plus-year career"
— and that "as a mother and woman, she was sobbing reading the messages."
BL further testifies Avignone relayed:
— "She thought that I deserved to see what had been done to me."
— Jones had reached out to BL's publicist #LeslieSloane "to share the same" but "was brushed off."
— and that the messages were on a phone Jones said she owned because "it was a company phone."
Clarification: whether BL spoke with Jones:
— When asked "did you speak with #StephanieJones," BL first answers: "No. This was relayed to me through Ashley."
— Shortly after, when asked if BL had "no conversations with #StephanieJones," BL corrects: "I did."
When the first call occurred and who was on it:
— Asked when BL spoke to Jones the first time, BL answers: "Likely a few days later… Somewhere within a week."
— BL places it around late August/early September: "It could still be late August, early September, somewhere in there."
— BL adds: "I believe Ashley was on the phone as well."
What Jones allegedly said, and the "legal" coordination emphasis:
BL testifies Jones:
— reiterated that, "as a mother and as a woman, that I needed to see these messages," and "warned me about the people involved."
— said she "would like to get me the documents."
BL says she responded:
— "it was really important to me to obtain them in a way that was legal and… that lawyers needed to coordinate that."
And BL testifies:
— "She said she owned the phone but agreed. And she said that she would reach out to counsel."
4️⃣ Timeline: when documents were obtained & reviewed
When BL "eventually" got the documents:
— Asked if BL got a hold of the documents, BL answers: "Eventually, yes."
— Asked when, BL answers: "Fall of 2024."
— Pressed for specificity, BL adds: "I would guess October."
When she reviewed them:
— BL answers "Yes" to having reviewed them, and confirms the review timeframe: "in or around October."
5️⃣ Relationship between Jones/PR & Wayfarer
— Asked if Jones told her Wayfarer was her client, BL answers: "I don’t know. I knew that they at least had been her client."
— Asked if it's correct BL knew Jones was the PR company working for Wayfarer, BL answers: "I believe so."
What the documents purportedly show:
— When asked: "Did anything in those documents actually state that something was done to create negative press about you?" BL answers: "Yes."
#BlakeLively #Vanzan #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #NewYorkTimes #nytimes
This is the funniest "catchy" response from #JedWallace's attorney. 😆😆
Q. (BY MS. TAHLER) 51, sorry. Exhibit 51, what is a website appearing at ....
MR. BABCOCK: Catchy.
#StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni #JedWallace #WallacevsLively #JonesvsAbel
A Self-Explanatory Video That Says It All ⬇️
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
WF'S MOTION TO DISMISS (MTD) THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AND THE "JOHN DOE" DEFENDANTS
The Wayfarer Parties' (WF) motion to dismiss the eighth cause of action for defamation & the unidentified "John Does 1–10," argue that dismissal under Rules 41(b), 21, and 4(m) based on plaintiffs'—Stephanie Jones & Jonesworks LLC (SJ)—prolonged failure to identify, name, or serve any Doe defendants and the court's prior finding that the defamation claim is time-barred.
1️⃣ What WF's motion is asking for?
WF request an order that, in priority:
(1) Dismisses the eighth cause of action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) (failure to prosecute).
(2) Drops the Doe defendants under Rule 21 (party management).
(3) Dismisses under the Court's inherent authority to police failure to prosecute (overlapping with Rule 41(b)).
(4) Alternatively, dismisses without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve.
2️⃣ Factual & procedural arguments
(A) The defamation claim is "Doe-only"
The eighth cause of action is titled "Defamation (Against Defendants John Doe 1–10)" and alleges unknown individuals created/published two websites and later social-media accounts containing allegedly defamatory statements.
WF emphasise: no named defendant is alleged liable for this eighth cause of action as pleaded.
(B) The timeline
— Case commenced Dec. 24, 2024 in NY Supreme Court and removed Jan. 27, 2025.
— Deadline to amend/join parties: April 18, 2025.
— Fact discovery closed Sept. 30, 2025 (except limited depositions), with subpoenas failing to identify the Does.
— SJ moved to amend Dec. 8, 2025 to substitute Melissa Nathan for the Does on the defamation count (among other changes).
— Court denied the amendment March 26, 2026, finding lack of diligence, undue delay, prejudice, and futility because the defamation claim was time-barred.
— SJ agreed on June 29, 2026 to dismiss the eighth cause and Doe defendants by July 10, 2026, then did not do it.
3️⃣ Legal rules: how each rule is used
(A) Rule 41(b): dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute
The standard invoked: WF cite Rule 41(b)'s discretionary authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute and emphasise courts "routinely dismiss" Doe claims on this basis.
And then apply the familiar Second Circuit multi-factor test (duration, notice, prejudice, docket management vs. plaintiff's chance to be heard, lesser sanctions).
How WF apply the factors:
— Duration: SJ failed to identify/serve any Doe for 19+ months.
— Prejudice: WF argue both presumed prejudice (long delay) and concrete prejudice because defendants face the continuing burden and potential for renewed discovery tied to a claim the Court has already found futile.
— Ongoing practical prejudice: SJ refuses to withdraw an expert aimed at identifying the website creators and refuses to withdraw damages opinions tied to the defamation theory—suggesting the Doe claim continues to distort expert discovery and trial preparation even if no Doe is present.
— Notice: SJ was on notice via the scheduling order, warnings of a dismissal motion, and (most pointedly) their written agreement to dismiss by July 10, 2026.
— Lesser sanctions: WF argue lesser sanctions cannot cure the fundamental defect because the claim is already time-barred and further amendment would be futile.
The "law of the case" & "futility": WF's strongest "with prejudice" argument is that the Court already found:
— SJ lacked diligence, and
— the defamation claim was time-barred and therefore futile.
WF argue those determinations are the law of the case, so keeping the Doe defamation count alive is purposeless.
They further tie futility to relation-back limitations: under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) and CPLR 1024, relation back requires diligence in identifying Doe defendants; the Court already found SJ did not exercise such diligence. Even if SJ later identify a Doe, WF contend SJ still cannot revive the claim because limitations and relation-back standards foreclose it—supporting dismissal with prejudice as "deprives Plaintiffs of nothing."
(B) Rule 21: dropping Doe parties as a case-management step
Rule 21 permits dropping parties "at any time" on just terms and is presented as a broad tool guided by fairness and efficiency.
Rule 21 is narrower than Rule 41(b):
— Once plaintiffs had discovery opportunities to learn the Does' identities but failed to identify/serve them, it is appropriate to drop them.
(C) Rule 4(m): mandatory dismissal without prejudice for non-service
Rule 4(m) requires dismissal without prejudice (or an order to serve by a certain date) if service is not made within 90 days, and WF emphasise Rule 4(m) applies to Doe defendants.
WF argue there is no good cause and no justification for more time because:
— plaintiffs had 19+ months,
— missed the amendment deadline,
— delayed website-related discovery until after limitations expired,
— finished fact discovery without identifying a Doe, and
— promised dismissal but didn't do it.
(D) Inherent authority
WF cite the Court's inherent authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute as an additional basis, largely reinforcing Rule 41(b).
URL (MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE WAYFARER PARTIES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AND THE “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANTS): ⬇️
https://t.co/PAjseOa1OT
URL (DECLARATION OF ELLYN S. GAROFALO IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE WAYFARER PARTIES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION): ⬇️
https://t.co/QVEis5L3YS
URL (EXHIBIT A): ⬇️
https://t.co/V2BHJmWC2u
URL (EXHIBIT B): ⬇️
https://t.co/slCCmxHPjJ
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
A Self-Explanatory Video That Says It All ⬇️
... about Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel / Wayfarer
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
WF'S MOTION TO DISMISS (MTD) THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AND THE "JOHN DOE" DEFENDANTS
The Wayfarer Parties' (WF) motion to dismiss the eighth cause of action for defamation & the unidentified "John Does 1–10," argue that dismissal under Rules 41(b), 21, and 4(m) based on plaintiffs'—Stephanie Jones & Jonesworks LLC (SJ)—prolonged failure to identify, name, or serve any Doe defendants and the court's prior finding that the defamation claim is time-barred.
1️⃣ What WF's motion is asking for?
WF request an order that, in priority:
(1) Dismisses the eighth cause of action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) (failure to prosecute).
(2) Drops the Doe defendants under Rule 21 (party management).
(3) Dismisses under the Court's inherent authority to police failure to prosecute (overlapping with Rule 41(b)).
(4) Alternatively, dismisses without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve.
2️⃣ Factual & procedural arguments
(A) The defamation claim is "Doe-only"
The eighth cause of action is titled "Defamation (Against Defendants John Doe 1–10)" and alleges unknown individuals created/published two websites and later social-media accounts containing allegedly defamatory statements.
WF emphasise: no named defendant is alleged liable for this eighth cause of action as pleaded.
(B) The timeline
— Case commenced Dec. 24, 2024 in NY Supreme Court and removed Jan. 27, 2025.
— Deadline to amend/join parties: April 18, 2025.
— Fact discovery closed Sept. 30, 2025 (except limited depositions), with subpoenas failing to identify the Does.
— SJ moved to amend Dec. 8, 2025 to substitute Melissa Nathan for the Does on the defamation count (among other changes).
— Court denied the amendment March 26, 2026, finding lack of diligence, undue delay, prejudice, and futility because the defamation claim was time-barred.
— SJ agreed on June 29, 2026 to dismiss the eighth cause and Doe defendants by July 10, 2026, then did not do it.
3️⃣ Legal rules: how each rule is used
(A) Rule 41(b): dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute
The standard invoked: WF cite Rule 41(b)'s discretionary authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute and emphasise courts "routinely dismiss" Doe claims on this basis.
And then apply the familiar Second Circuit multi-factor test (duration, notice, prejudice, docket management vs. plaintiff's chance to be heard, lesser sanctions).
How WF apply the factors:
— Duration: SJ failed to identify/serve any Doe for 19+ months.
— Prejudice: WF argue both presumed prejudice (long delay) and concrete prejudice because defendants face the continuing burden and potential for renewed discovery tied to a claim the Court has already found futile.
— Ongoing practical prejudice: SJ refuses to withdraw an expert aimed at identifying the website creators and refuses to withdraw damages opinions tied to the defamation theory—suggesting the Doe claim continues to distort expert discovery and trial preparation even if no Doe is present.
— Notice: SJ was on notice via the scheduling order, warnings of a dismissal motion, and (most pointedly) their written agreement to dismiss by July 10, 2026.
— Lesser sanctions: WF argue lesser sanctions cannot cure the fundamental defect because the claim is already time-barred and further amendment would be futile.
The "law of the case" & "futility": WF's strongest "with prejudice" argument is that the Court already found:
— SJ lacked diligence, and
— the defamation claim was time-barred and therefore futile.
WF argue those determinations are the law of the case, so keeping the Doe defamation count alive is purposeless.
They further tie futility to relation-back limitations: under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) and CPLR 1024, relation back requires diligence in identifying Doe defendants; the Court already found SJ did not exercise such diligence. Even if SJ later identify a Doe, WF contend SJ still cannot revive the claim because limitations and relation-back standards foreclose it—supporting dismissal with prejudice as "deprives Plaintiffs of nothing."
(B) Rule 21: dropping Doe parties as a case-management step
Rule 21 permits dropping parties "at any time" on just terms and is presented as a broad tool guided by fairness and efficiency.
Rule 21 is narrower than Rule 41(b):
— Once plaintiffs had discovery opportunities to learn the Does' identities but failed to identify/serve them, it is appropriate to drop them.
(C) Rule 4(m): mandatory dismissal without prejudice for non-service
Rule 4(m) requires dismissal without prejudice (or an order to serve by a certain date) if service is not made within 90 days, and WF emphasise Rule 4(m) applies to Doe defendants.
WF argue there is no good cause and no justification for more time because:
— plaintiffs had 19+ months,
— missed the amendment deadline,
— delayed website-related discovery until after limitations expired,
— finished fact discovery without identifying a Doe, and
— promised dismissal but didn't do it.
(D) Inherent authority
WF cite the Court's inherent authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute as an additional basis, largely reinforcing Rule 41(b).
URL (MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE WAYFARER PARTIES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AND THE “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANTS): ⬇️
https://t.co/PAjseOa1OT
URL (DECLARATION OF ELLYN S. GAROFALO IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE WAYFARER PARTIES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION): ⬇️
https://t.co/QVEis5L3YS
URL (EXHIBIT A): ⬇️
https://t.co/V2BHJmWC2u
URL (EXHIBIT B): ⬇️
https://t.co/slCCmxHPjJ
#JonesvsAbel #StephanieJones #Jonesworks #BlakeLively #LivelyvsBaldoni
“#StephanieJones' MO: going through emails and asking her employee to call Verizon to obtain phone and text records. WTF!!
#Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel “
👀👀👀👀
#StephanieJones' MO: going through emails and asking her employee to call Verizon to obtain phone and text records. WTF!!
#Jonesworks #JonesvsAbel
Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe
minichat():video
Seen from Sweden
تانقو
رقص_عربی
Seen from Egypt
フレアビキニ
Seen from Japan
StopWajibPCR
Seen from United States
minichat((((())))) * * filter:videos
Seen from Turkey
qostattoo
Seen from Australia
ChicagoWomen
Seen from United States
LagosHCT
Seen from United States
LetsgoLiquid
Seen from United States
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers