Big Win For Blake Lively!

Big Win For Blake Lively!

There’s no way to sugarcoat it. Justin Baldoni just took a big L. Hello my frame. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, her number one source for everything it ends with us saga. And the van Xan of it all has been popping today strategically. Yesterday I told you all that Beldon and the Wayfairer parties moved to compel Blake mail over the van Xan of it all. Belon and crew argued that Suelella no chill was refusing to designate a Van Xan employee, you know, the company that filed that sham subpoena to get all of the texts and emails from his publicist Jen Ael who got fired by her former boss Stephanie Jones. And this is all going on in the related Jones versus Ael litigation. There were allegedly some discrepancies about the time frame that Vanzan was willing to testify over or so we were told yesterday. Today a lawyer for Vanzan has a very different story to tell. Margarita O’Donnell says to Judge Lyman, quote, we write on behalf of nonparty Vanzan Inc. Vanzan in response to the letter motion to compel filed by defendants which purports to compel a corporate representative for Vanzan to testify as to specific time period in its upcoming rule 30B6 deposition as to a certain deposition topics. This is a curious request given that the next part is in bold and italics. Banzan confirmed on multiple occasions that it was producing a corporate design on September 30th to testify to all topics in the deposition subpoena. This letter motion is either an effort by defendants to use the court’s docket to advance an unfounded narrative and generate media coverage around Van Xan, a frequent boogeyman of defendants or an attempt to manufacture a dispute where none exists. Regardless, defendants’s motion does nothing more than waste the time of the court, the parties, and third party Vanzan unless ordered otherwise. Van Xan plans to produce its corporate design to be questioned on the subpoena topics on September 30th, 2025. and bold italics told defendants that in writing on multiple occasions before they filed this baseless motion. Accordingly, there is nothing for this court to compel and the motion should be denied as moot. with respect to the narrow issue defendants motion raises which is Vanzan’s objections regarding the relevant date range of certain topics they never once raised or conferred with Van Xan on this issue that could be problematic if true more than an expectation judges demand that lawyers do this before burdening the court. The Van Xan lawyer continues, “Nor has Vanzan ever refused to provide testimony on any of the topics set forth in the subpoena. Upon receiving their motion, we asked councel for defendants to withdraw their motion to compel because there is no dispute and therefore nothing to compel. They refused and demanded that all objections be waved, including privilege. There is no issue for the court to resolve and no need for defendants to waste the court’s resources with this motion. A review of the relevant events reveals the defendant’s motion is without basis. On September 11th, 2025, Council for Vanzan accepted service of a rule 30B6 subpoena on Vanzan, which contained 11 deposition topics and 12 new document requests. Defendants sprawling subpoena sought discovery on a wide variety of topics. At no point did defendants ask for a meet and confer in advance of serving the subpoena or following service of the subpoena. On September 18th, 2025, council for Vanzan asked to meet and confer with defendants at the meet. Wait, they said that they didn’t meet and confer. At no point did defendants Okay. Defendants did not ask to meet and confer, but they did meet and confer. On September 18th, 2025, Council for Vanzan asked to meet and confer with defendants. At the meet and confer, Council for Vanzan informed defendants that it would produce a designate to testify on the topics and would serve general objections on September 24th. On September 24th, 2025, Vanzan served objections and responses to the rule 30B6 deposition subpoena served by defendants, which contained standard objections and responses, including as to the time period in defendants subpoena. There is a footnote right after that that says the subpoena contained a time period that began on January 1st, 2022. Any mention of Vanzan in the claims in the Jones litigation relates to Van Xan’s involvement in a New York State lawsuit that was filed in September 2024. Thus, Vanzan objected and stated that the appropriate time period was on or about the filing of that lawsuit. It did not, however, refuse to answer questions prior to that date or refuse to provide a corporate design. At the end of the objections to each of the specific topics, Vanzan affirmed that it would produce a deponent to testify as to the topics and listed no specific limitation other than privilege. This is in stark contrast to simultaneous objections filed to defendants document subpoena where only objections were listed. Banzan also offered to meet and confer. On September 25th at 12:38 a.m. Eastern, council for defendants sent an email. Kad these lawyers are billing over time. They are billing all the time. So much money. The lawyers are the only winners here. On September 28th at 12:38 a.m. Eastern, Council for Defendants sent an email to Council for Vanzan offering to narrow two topics and asking for the name of the individuals who would attend the deposition in person. Council for Defendants also demanded that Vanzan respond by noon Eastern on Thursday, September 25th, 2025 if Vanzan withdraws its objections to the topics. If the objections to the topics are not withdrawn by such date and time, we will seek appropriate relief from the court. On September 25th at 10:28 a.m. Eastern, council for Vanzan responded that we need to discuss with our client and expect to get back to you later today or tomorrow morning with respect to the specific issues you raise. In the meantime, confirming we are planning on having a deponent testify on Tuesday. Not only are the lawyers making a ton of money, but all of the parties are having to weigh in on this and that and the other, and their lives revolve around this saga right now, which has been going on all year. The Vanzan lawyer continues, “There were no additional emails from defendants counsel, no phone calls. Defendants council never raised any time period issue. Nor did defendants council give counsel for Vanzanne the courtesy of consulting with her client as council stated she was doing. Defendants council made no effort to apprise council for Vanzan of any specific issue relating to the objections. That is in stark contrast to the other specific components of defendants 12:38 a.m. email which offered, for example, narrowing of certain topics and a discussion about relevance. As such, it is difficult to see this motion to compel as anything other than an attempt to manufacture a dispute and drag nonparty Van Xan into litigation for show, allowing defendants to reiterate their misleading narrative about Banzan for the press. Well, Banzan should be a party to the litigation, not a nonparty. It’s not misleading. If defendants had any genuine concerns about the time period objection, the Vanzan attorney continues, they would have raised it with Vanzan before inconveniencing the court. That is the purpose of the meet and confer requirements and consistent with principles of professional decorum and professional efficiency. Yet at 8:56 p.m. Eastern on September 25th, defendants filed a motion to compel Vanzan, which seeks to compel Vanzan to testify to the original time period in the subpoena. Footnote number two says, “Defendants characterize this as a request to compel testimony about the full period of Vanzan’s relationship with plaintiffs Stephanie Jones and Jones works.” Defendants use their motion as a vehicle to reiterate their baseless claims regarding how evidence of their misconduct was obtained from Miss Abel’s phone and their media friendly theory about the underlying DO litigation in New York court. Defendants suggest without any evidence that there was a prior relationship between Vanzan and Miss Jones or Jones works. Well, there was between Miss Jones and Jones Works and Miss Kaka and her publicist Wayfairer has repeatedly said that Jones works or Stephanie Jones sent to them some of Jen Abel’s communications in August of 2024, a full month before the Vanzan Sham lawsuit. the subpoena that should not have happened. No judge was even assigned. Vanzan is preparing a deponent to testify about any alleged relationship Vanzan had with Miss Jones and Jones Works as set forth in the relevant topics. Roughly simultaneously to their filing on Thursday at 9:02 p.m. Eastern, Council for Vanzan sent an email accepting the proposed narrowing of topics four through 5, providing the names of the design and the attendees for the deposition and confirming again that Van Xan would attend deposition. After reviewing defendants’s motion to compel, council sent defendants emails plural requesting they withdraw the motion and explaining why council for defendants responded and refused. This motion is an effort to manufacture a dispute so defendants can further burden nonparty vanzan. They should be further burdened to further burden non-party Vanzan and provide more fodder for an ongoing media campaign. As defendants know, had Vanzan sought to limit the scope of the topics, it had to file a motion for a protective order with this court. Instead, Vanzan served objections and responses, met and conferred as appropriate, and confirmed multiple times that its designate would testify on the topics. There’s another footnote that says, “Defendants may note that their 1238 email had a vague catchall request that Vanzan withdraw their objections to the topics.” Given the sprawling nature of the defendant’s subpoena, Vanzan asserted several standard objections to the topics, including as to relevance, privilege, work product, burden, time period, and over breath. It appears that the real reason defendants made a catch-all demand was to create the appearance of a dispute and a meet and confer so that they could file a motion to compel on any of the objections. Defendants had multiple opportunities to raise any concerns about the time period objection specifically, but never did. But never did. and simply demanding that all objections, including privileged objections, be withdrawn is not reasonable or made in good faith. In conclusion, the court should deny defendants motion as moot. There is no dispute between Vanzan and defendants. As Van Xan has stated to defendants and consistent with federal practice, Vanzan will produce a designated testify as to non-privileged information regarding the topics without waving any objections. Respectfully submitted, Margarita K. O’Donnell. A lot of the expensive fancy law firms are in Washington DC. That’s where Margarita is based. And there are some emails attached here where as Maggie Margarita confirms they told Wayfairer that there would be a design to answer questions at the deposition next week. I’m looking at that. That’s real. And then one of Maggie’s other colleagues says to team Wayfairer, “In your email this morning, you did not raise any issue regarding this objection as to the time period. So we’ve had no meet and confer or discussion on this topic.” And yet Wayfairer filed their motion to compel anyways. So the Vanzan lawyer says your motion to compel is the first time we are hearing anything about this issue. So at this point you filed a motion to compel a Vanzan corporate designate to testify on a topic for which we already told they would appear and testify about. As such, there is no dispute between the parties and no need to waste the court’s time addressing non-existent issues. As such, please withdraw your motion by 11:00 p.m. Eastern. If not, we will file a response which makes your course of conduct clear and sets forth your bad faith conduct in not only raising an issue that was never raised with Vanzan, but also raising a dispute when you knew no dispute existed. If your motion is not withdrawn within the hour and we need to file a response, we will seek costs, fees, and any other sanctions for such conduct. Let me say that one more time. If your motion is not withdrawn within the hour and we need to file a response, we will seek costs, fees, and other sanctions for such conduct. Well, they did file a response. And um yeah, Kevin Fritz did respond to John saying in my email from early this morning, essentially last night, I demanded that Vanzan withdraw its objections to the topics. I also told you that if the objections were not withdrawn by noon Eastern, we would seek relief from the court. you failed to withdraw the objections, which I agree the objections were standard, which never should have been lodged in in the first place, especially given the court’s prior ruling that Vanzan’s communications with Jones works are relevant. You attempted to bury within a host of other objections the fact that Vanzan’s designate would not testify to anything pre-dating the Vanzan lawsuit. If you are now ready to withdraw the objections, please prepare for my review a formal stipulation to that effect and we can submit to the court to be so ordered. Y’all, things were popping over the last 24 hours. The Vanzan lawyer shot back. Kevin, it seems clear to us that your email from last night was an effort to set up a motion to compel without giving Vanzan any notice of the nature of any disagreement. We find this very disappointing and completely inconsistent with the spirit of a meet and confer and the need to be efficient with the court’s resources. The chronology and communications speak clearly for themselves. If Vanzan had wanted to refuse to produce a designate based on relevance, we would have had to move for a protective order. Vanzan did not. We told you on September 18th that we would provide a corporate design on September 30th. And we told you again on September 22nd during our meet and confer that we would produce a designate to testify on the topics as we had reached out to discuss the topics in advance as is the practice under the amended federal rules. Then we followed federal practice and asserted Vanzan’s objections and responses on September 24th. These ran the gamut as they always do. And as no doubt your clients have done in this case, we want to be very clear since your motion and email seem entirely focused on the time period. You never raised any concerns about the time period objection with us before filing the motion to compel. Your 12:38 a.m. email purposefully buried the issue in a vague demand that Vanzan withdraw all its objections, including privilege. At the same time, your email outlined multiple specific issues, but not the time period objection. We spent the day focused on the specific issues you raised so we could get back to you when we said we would and try to reach an agreement on those issues. We acted in good faith in trying to address your 1238 a.m. email. How many times are they going to remind the judge about 12:38 a.m.? And our subsequent email response shows that you had multiple opportunities to ask us about the time period. You did not do so. The first we heard about the time period issue was in your motion to compel, which we were shocked to see. If you had raised the issue, we would have gotten back to you with a response reiterating our same position and you would not have had to file your motion. In any case, there is no dispute. As Vanzan has said repeatedly, we are producing a designate to testify about the topics consistent with the topics as they are narrowed by our mutual agreement. We will assert the necessary objections at the deposition to questions as is our right. But the only limitation instruction we plan to provide our design is that of privilege or if the question goes beyond the topics you listed. Meaning they’re not going to object to asking about August of 2024 before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed. We reiterate there is no dispute and it is a waste of the court’s time. You have until 8:00 a.m. to withdraw your motion. If you do not, we will file a response, point out your bad faith conduct to the court, and request fees, costs, and other appropriate sanctions for having to respond to your improper motion. Well, remember yesterday the motion to compel was filed. This morning, Fritz responded back to John saying, “Vanzan’s written objections state that Vanzan will only provide information for each of the topics starting from, on, or about the filing date of the Vanzan lawsuit, which is September 27th, 2024. Please let me know the good faith basis for that objection. Upon receiving your written objections, we asked you to withdraw them by September 25th at noon. You failed to do so. We also asked you to meet and confer that same morning. You failed to do so. If Van Xan is now finally willing to withdraw its objections, please prepare a stipulation to that effect which can be so ordered, thereby resolving the motion. John has had enough of this BSery. Kevin, we’ve told you on multiple occasions that we are providing a van van corporate design to testify about the topics in defendants deposition notice and impose no limitation with the exception of privilege. Your request to withdraw all objections, including privilege, which you have no right to even request, is not something any parties have done in this litigation, and you know full well is made in bad faith. We will file our response with the court and we’ll make our designate available Tuesday. If you no longer wish to take this deposition, please let us know today by noon so we don’t waste further time and effort on this matter. We accordingly reserve all rights to seek sanctions based on defendants conduct here. Well, after that response from Vanzan Wayfairer rushed back to court today and had a lot to say themselves. Dear Judge Lyman, pursuant to rule 4C of your honor’s individual practices, defendants Jennifer Ael, Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldon, and Wayfairer Studios LLC, collectively the Wayfairer parties, request leave to file this brief reply to nonparty Van Xan’s opposition to the Wayfairer party’s motion to compel. In response to each of the 11 deposition topics enumerated in the subpoena, Vanzan objected on various grounds, including Vanzan will provide information for this topic starting from on or about the filing date of the DOE lawsuit. The Vanzan Inc. versus DO’s 1 through10 lawsuit was filed on September 27th, 2024. Happy anniversary. Banzan’s response to each of the 11 topics concluded with subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections and reserving the right to assert additional objections. Vanzan will designate a federal rule of civil procedure 30B6 witness reasonably prepared to testify about non-privileged information responsive to this topic. In other words, Vanzan confirmed that it would only provide information for each of the topics starting from September 27th, 2024 and not before such date. Therefore, the following statement in the opposition is inaccurate. Nor has Vanzan ever refused to provide testimony on any of the topics set forth in the subpoena. This lawyering is asking Van Xan to withdraw all objections. It was made in bad faith. I’m team truth. You’re not going to withdraw all objections, but you do meet and confer and try to work through specific issues. and Vanzan provided receipts that Wayfairer did not raise the issue of the time period objection before filing their motion to compel. Kevin Fritz continues, “The Wayfairer parties were not obligated to wait and hope that at the deposition on September 30th, 2025, which is the last day of fact discovery, except for certain matters, Vanzan would withdraw the objection. Upon receiving the formal objections, we asked Vanzan’s council to withdraw them. Of course, not a privilege-based objection. Vanzan failed to do so. In the early morning of September 25th, 2025, 12:38 a.m. I am adding that we asked Vanzan’s council to meet and confer during the morning business hours of September 25th, 2025. Council stated it needed to discuss the issue with its client, presumably Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds, and would get back to us later that day or the following morning. As of the evening of September 25th, 2025, no response was received. Given the looming September 30th, 2025 deposition, it would have been improper to further delay judicial intervention even after the motion was filed and Vanzan seemingly stated it would withdraw its stated refusal to provide information predating its New York state court lawsuit. We asked Vanzan’s council to prepare a formal stipulation to that effect which could be so ordered by the court thereby resolving the motion. Vanzan refused. We also asked Vanzan’s council for its goodfaith basis if one existed for its refusal to provide information predating the Vanzan lawsuit. No substantive response was received. That’s not true. They did response that they would. Notably, Vanzan still has not advised the Wayfairer parties which of the listed attendees for the deposition whom all appear to be attorneys is the corporate design and for which topic. To the extent Van Van is now agreeing to withdraw the time period-based objection, the motion should be granted as unopposed. To the extent Vanzan is maintaining such objection, the motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in our initial papers. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Fritz. Kevin Fritz is absolutely insane. Insane. He included as an exhibit this email between him and one of the Vanzan lawyers. Remember I read it not that long ago. Kevin, we’ve told you on multiple occasions that we are providing a Vanzan corporate designate to testify about the topics in defendants deposition notice and imposed no limitation with the exception of privilege. Meaning when the designate is deposed, they can talk about August of 2024 or before. the only thing that they will object to is attorney client privilege or work product privilege or other privilege grounds. But Kevin Fritz responded to that today saying, “Please let me know today which witnesses will be testifying about which topics you are free to make whatever privilege-based objections you deem appropriate. We reserve all rights in that regard. I am reiterating my request for you to set forth your good faith basis for Vanzan’s objection that no information predating its September 27th, 2024 lawsuit will be provided. They were not objecting to that. They literally just said they are not objecting to that. This is painful. Well, the judge has put them out of their misery and come back with a swift and short ruling. Her lap dog, Lyman, says the motion to compel is denied for failure to satisfy rule 4. C of the court’s individual practices in civil cases. And here’s where it gets worse. Banzan, Inc. may move by letter brief for recovery of its expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. So, the motion to compel is denied for failure to satisfy rule 4. C of the court’s individual practices in civil cases. Rule 4. C of Lyman’s court is about letter motions. He says, “Letter motions may be filed when permitted by the SDNY local rules and the SDNY electronic case filing rules and instructions. Motions to amend a case management plan and scheduling order to file papers under seal or in redacted form to compel discovery or for a protective order or confidentiality order may be made by letter motion. Motions to quash or modify a subpoena pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 45D3 or for contempt pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 45G should be made by formal motion. Letters seeking relief should be filed on ECF as text searchable letter motions. Any party wishing to file a letter motion shall include in the letter motion a statement that it first attempted to confer in good faith with the opposing parties in person or by telephone in an effort to resolve the dispute. The letter motion should not indicate the content of the meet and confer unless independently relevant. If a letter motion has consent of all opposing parties, the letter motion should prominently so indicate. If it does not, any opposing party should submit a letter scheduled appearance. So, my takeaway from Lyman’s over it short ruling is y’all didn’t meet and confer as I demand of you all about the time period issue. So, your motion to compel is not granted. And you know Vanzan is now going to come for attorney speeds. And you should come to bypopstuff.com. Go to bypopstuff.com. My merch store. Grab your friends. Wear your florals. I’m selling that. I’m also selling Team Truth merch and more at bypopstuff.com. Also, make sure you stay informed and entertained and get an exclusive podcast a week from me at Patreon. Sign up on our Patreon at patreon.com/p to the E to the R to the E to the V to the H to the I to the L to the T to the O to the N. Also, it would be my pleasure truly to make a personalized video for you. I am available on Cameo book one right now on the Cameo website at cameo.com/myame. P to the E to the R to the E to the Z to the H to the I to the R to the T to the O to the N. If you watched until the end, you’re a superstar. Say superstar cuz you are. Drop that in the comments section. You are the 1% who watches until the end. Hit that like button, share. Thank you for sticking around. Superstar in the comments. Thoughts on the judge’s ruling. Thoughts on Kevin Fritz? thoughts on anything and everything. Let’s discuss it all in the comments section. Superstar

🥶 #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!

Big Win For Blake Lively!

Perez Hilton
https://www.youtube.com/perezhilton