Blake Lively’s Subpoena Against Me Is VERY PROBLEMATIC! I Am Taking Immediate Action! | Perez Hilton

Blake Lively’s Subpoena Against Me Is VERY PROBLEMATIC! I Am Taking Immediate Action! | Perez Hilton

Naughty, naughty, naughty. Hello my frame. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, and your number one source for everything. It ends with us, Saga. This video is going to be a recap of everything that has happened today behind the scenes, as well as her very problematic subpoena of me. Me being subpoenaed is not the problem. The requests asked of me in this subpoena by the antibbellum aicionada that is highly confusing incorrect, not legally sound. according to my analysis of the subpoena which I shared with you in detail over the weekend every single thing that was asked of me. I’ve done a lot of research and a lot of learning and I’m not a lawyer but I am representing myself with subpoena gate and I think I know a lot and I’m learning more every day even at 47 years old. For example, today I learned for the first time how to turn an email that I sent into a PDF. I had no idea. I never had to use it before, but now I do because those emails are going to be evidence exhibits that I will or could potentially submit to the court. So, seeing as you all have been a part of this with me from the beginning and have been incredibly supportive, I’m going to take you along for the ride. What a journey this is going to be. Based upon what I have learned in this prosay process, meaning without a lawyer, it is my obligation now legally to bring up my concerns to Blackface Blake’s legal team. So today, I sent them an email. I was served on Saturday. I spent the entire day and yesterday doing research and I am on it. Let me share with you all what I told the zero time Oscar nominated actresses attorneys earlier today. I wrote, quote, “Dear council, I am writing regarding the subpoena served on me in connection with Lively versus Wayfairer Studios, case number 124-CV-03157-lj. I wanted to be accurate and thorough.” My email to her council continues, “As a nonparty to this action and someone representing myself, I am still reviewing the subpoena and seeking to understand its scope and implications. At this time, I have significant concerns about its appropriateness, including whether it complies with applicable legal standards. I also have substantive objections I believe I am required by law to raise with you. Accordingly, I am reaching out to formally request a meet and confer to discuss these issues. Please let me know your availability this week so that we may arrange a time to speak. Sincerely, I signed this one sincerely. So the ball is in their court and I have done more than my part in good faith. I have encountered some roadblocks with the filing system that Judge Lyman uses in his court. I have emailed the judge’s chambers and also emailed the prosay department of the southern district of New York. I am awaiting responses and hope that they are able to help me navigate this process as a prosay respondent meaning someone without attorneys prosay. I’m not going to repeat that again. We got it right. Okay. A prosay respondent who is a nonparty to this litigation. Speaking of nonparties to this litigation, today Judge Lyman gave a solid and granted a request by a fellow content creator and journalist. Last week, Lauren Nadi filed an intent to file a motion to quash the subpoena that Serena Vanderrooken served upon Google for her. Laurens’s information. And today the judge says the motion to squash shall be filed by July 28th with responses due no later than August 4th. Additionally, the judge responded in a very sassy manner to another content creator. This one is also representing herself prosay. So, I am thankful that the judge gave this respondent some grace, but he’s not pleased. His ruling today says, “The court construses the filing at docket number 445 as a motion to quash and construs pages 8 to 18 of the filing as movement’s memorandum in support of the motion.” translation. The movement did not do a good or appropriate job filed incorrectly. But despite all of that, the judge is granting this YouTuber whom in this filing, the judge is protecting their anonymity the request to file a motion to quash. That YouTuber is named Cassidy O’Connell. And I believe that’s not Cassid’s real name. The judge says that responses to the motion to quash, which were already submitted, are due by July 28th. So, congratulations, Cassidy. You are being heard and you’re representing yourself, which is quite the undertaking. And then the judge included this clarification quote as a clarification to the order at docket number 432. The court will entertain a motion to quash by a prosay party if it is either de an anonymized or accompanied by a motion requesting leave to proceed anonymously in this court. Accordingly, a prosay party wishing to file a motion to quash has two options. File the motion in the party’s own name, file the motion to quash anonymously, for example, by using the pseudonym John Doe along with the motion to quash, file a separate motion requesting leave to proceed anonymously. Well, I don’t believe that party has done this, but the judge has granted the motion to quash to be considered. Additionally, Cassidy O’Connell’s manager, somebody named Ni Kai, submitted yet another letter to the judge, saying, “Dear Judge Lyman, nonparty prosay YouTube channel Cassidy OC respectfully requests this court that if it does not intend to grant the motion to quash that it hold in obeyance docket 44. 45 motion to quash filed on July 18th, 2025 until July 30th to provide time for necessary arrangements currently underway. That’s mysterious. If the court refuses to hold it in obeyance until July 30th, alternatively, please withdraw it. What? The deadline for a response to this subpoena is currently set at July 31st. So, this request falls one day less than the allotted time and therefore will not interfere with the court’s schedule. Interesting. This Cassidy O’Connell uh and uh the manager Nikai very mysterious. I am loving the new mustache by the way. loving it. Additionally, as I told you a few days ago, attorneys for fake snively went complaining to the judge that Justin Baldon’s crisis communications expert, Melissa Nathan, designated some of her responses as AEO, attorney’s eyes only, which she’s able to do per the protective order agreement that both sides entered into. Well, team Wayfairer has responded to their objections today. And before I get to them, this is why it’s important to read everything. Today, we learned for the first time that Bully Lively also subpoenaed the talky tickity, the clock app. Correct. information with the googs to get information over the goog’s wters the YouTubers and in addition to Elon Musk’s platform she also sent a subpoena to the talkie tickie however it appears that some of these accounts are very small I had never heard of any of them before she’s asking for their first and last name the registered email address, phone number numbers, both physical address, language, social media account information, location data, including internet protocol IP addresses and/or SIM card information, user generated content and associated metadata, users phone and social network contacts, including the username, name, phone numbers, and email addresses. of existing users of your platform. Backup recovery email address or phone number, length of service including start date and any premium services utilized, means and source of payment for such services if applicable and log in IP addresses used from May 1st to the present with dates and session times. She’s going after Leslie.MG, Lily, Lisa, Masked.realities, opinions that are mine, pop. Diaries, thenews410, and then user 6723486612442. What a fishing expedition. Massive. Well, the Wayfair parties are not here for their sniveling, snobbling, graveling, complaining, nor should they be. Melissa, Nathan, and the agency group are entitled to designate what they deem confidential and attorney’s eyes only as such. So, a little bit ago, Kevin Fritz, one of the lawyers for the Wayfairer parties, told Judge Lyman, quote, “As council for the Wayfairer studios, Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, Steve Saritz, and Enz Movie, Melissa Nathan, the Agency Group, and Jennifer Ael, we write in response to Blake Lively’s motion to compel TAG to dddes what was marked as confidential and attorney’s eyes only in its second supplemental responses and objections. dated June 25th. According to the motion, a core component of Lively’s claims is that the Wayfairer parties are engaging in a smear campaign to somehow manipulate the apparently worldwide media landscape using untraceable sources to portray her as the wrongdoer. Characterizing the so-called campaign as untraceable not only defies common sense given that Lively knows precisely which news articles or stories and the authors thereof she takes issue with, but also undermines any justification for her ongoing effort to use this court and the federal rules of civil procedure to discover the untraceable In any event, Lively contends that TAG may have been able to obscure its contacts in connection with the initial smear campaign in August 2024. That is an admission that despite months of discovery, her receipt of thousands of pages of documents and her service of dozens of subpoenas and other requests for written discovery, Lively has no evidence that the Wayfairer parties employed a smear campaign or did anything in August 2024 other than protect their reputations as they’re entitled to when Lively’s allegations were publicized. Indeed, TAG Millisent Nathan’s agency was not retained until early August 2024, rendering Lively’s claim that in less than two weeks, TAG was able to turn the public against her. Incredible. Rendering that claim incredible. Not believable. Unable to accept the fact that the public backlash against Lively was purely organic, the motion improperly seeks to blame TAG for Lively’s sinking reputation without citation to any evidence. The motion alleges that the individuals identified in the interrogatory responses have spoken publicly about Miss Lively and this lawsuit apparently at the behest of TAG and the other way farer defendants. However, the motion ignores the broad scope of the interrogatories which seeks the names of those with whom TAG has merely communicated concerning among other topics lively her allegations or this lawsuit from May 2024 through the present. That is why the interrogatory responses identify those to whom TAG has harmlessly provided quotes from the Wayfairer party’s council in response to media requests for formal statements in connection with legal developments herein, as Lively’s legal team has repeatedly done. Boom. The interrogatory responses are in no fashion an admission that Tag communicated with the individuals to tarnish Lively’s reputation as she falsely alleges. Lively will not uncover any nefarious efforts by the wayfairer parties to convince anyone that she is anything or nothing at all. In fact, TAG did not communicate with any content creators about this matter or the underlying allegations until 2025 when requests for comment were preferred. Proferred Profer. The motion contends that the interrogatory responses, confidentiality, and AEO designations are having very real impacts in the form of content creators who are the subject of discovery have already painted Miss Lively as the aggressor in this lawsuit and have drawn a false equivalency between her discovery efforts and the Wayfairer party’s alleged smear campaign. That is a long winded manner of saying that Lively blames Tag for the recent public backlash against her. However, the allegation is baseless. First, if the interrogatory responses are currently reviewable only by council, they cannot affect the public’s perception of Lively. Second, the recent public backlash was seemingly triggered by subpoenas that Lively’s council served upon the Googs doing business as the YT, the talkie tick, and X, formerly the tweeters, collectively the social media subpoenas, seeking all account information, including phone number and financial information of specific content creators. According to one article, if Blake Lively had been hoping to garner public sympathy in her ongoing sexual harassment lawsuit with Justin Baldoni, that now seems unlikely given the backlash over her subpoena to googs for information about several pro-Just Baldon Y tubers. Third, of the various content creators and members of the mainstream media identified in the interrogatory responses, only one of them is the subject of the social media subpoenas. Therefore, the interrogatory responses and the designations thereof as confidential and attorney’s eyes only are irrelevant to the public relations mess that Lively has brought upon herself. Had Lively’s council properly engaged in and continued the meet and confer process concerning the interrogatory responses instead of filing the motion in a misguided effort to blame the wayfairer parties for her public relations woes. A response of this nature would not have been necessary. Tellingly, the motion lacks citation to legal authority supporting the ddesation of the proprietary information contained within the interrogatory responses. The reason for that omission is clear. The motion was filed for a single purpose to wrongfully force upon TAG and the other wayf farer parties the culpability for the criticism that Lively has faced for her social media subpoenas. Tag covetss the proprietary nature of the identities of its media contacts. However, TAG is dedicated to standing with the other wayf farer parties to discredit Lively’s false allegations of an orchestrated smear campaign. Accordingly, what? This is a surprise. What? Curveball. Accordingly, TAG does not oppose the motion and agrees to remove the confidentiality and attorney’s eyesonly designations from its interrogatory responses. In return, TAG trusts that Lively will no longer allege that anything regarding the so-called campaign is untraceable. This is more than a mic drop. This is a bomb drop. Oh my god. Wow. I was not expecting that. I thought this was an objection. And it read that way until the end. All right, my friend. So, you’ve heard updates from me, updates from other content creators, and updates from team Valdoni Wayfairer. This is a lot, and it’s also juicy. Let’s discuss everything in the comments section.

🎤 #BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni #TaylorSwift

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaHE2Xd6bhJbfM7T1TAmI9Q/join

Listen to The Perez Hilton Podcast with Chris Booker HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com

Sign up for my Patreon and get lots of exclusive content at http://Patreon.com/PerezHilton

Follow Me!
MAIN CHANNEL: http://youtube.com/PerezHilton
WEBSITE: http://PerezHilton.com
PEREZ’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/PerezHilton
GET A PERSONALIZED VIDEO FROM ME HERE: https://www.cameo.com/perezhilton
LISTEN TO MY PODCAST HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com
WEBSITE’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/ThePerezHilton

Check out my merch: http://BuyPopStuff.com

About Perez Hilton:
The original influencer, Perez Hilton founded and oversees one of the most iconic websites ever. In addition to his eponymous blog, he is the host of a very successful podcast, has a loyal following across two YouTube channels, has written four books, has acted in countless TV shows and films – as well as the stage. And, most importantly, he is the proud father of three happy and thriving kids and an adult child, his mother. Perez is one of the most sought after commentators and your best friend!

Blake Lively’s Subpoena Against Me Is VERY PROBLEMATIC! I Am Taking Immediate Action! | Perez Hilton

Perez Hilton

https://www.youtube.com/perezhilton