It wouldn't do to have Kjersti state under oath that she posted that video entirely for her own purposes. I bet Flaa would LOVE to go to court and explain exactly what a bully she thinks Blake is.

13 Reddit comments about Blake and Ryan’s attempts to create Barbenheimer 2.0:

“… Blake and Ryan are promoting this like it’s temu Barbenheimer… the afterparty was sponsored by Blake's booze company and her haircare line… it's all been a mess." Posted August 2024, one week after the opening of “It Ends with Us”.

"It’s bizarre and inappropriate. 'Wear your florals!' is something you say for a rom-com. They were so desperate for that Barbie-box-office-high that they treated a domestic violence story like a brunch invitation."

"It's quite clear that (Blake and Ryan) were trying to pull off a Barbieheimer-esque marketing move for It Ends With Us/Deadpool & Wolverine and it failed spectacularly."

"Blake wanted so badly to be seen as the 'producer-actress' powerhouse that Margot is, but she lacked the sincerity. She tried to copy the homework without doing the reading."

"They thought the public was gonna eat up 'It Ends with Deadpool' in the same way as Barbenheimer. Blake and Ryan are the definition of out-of-touch dummies if they thought we wouldn't see through it."

"Barbenheimer was a grassroots movement by film fans; this felt like a forced corporate mandate from Maximum Effort. You can’t manufacture 'cool' when the subject matter is domestic violence."

"No one can convince me Margot Robbie with Barbie and Scarjo having her directorial debut didn't break Blake's brain somehow."

"(Blake) was trying to co-opt a cultural moment she didn't earn. Margot Robbie produced a masterpiece that understood its audience; Blake produced a marketing campaign for her booze and hair care."

“…they were so focused on the 'power couple' branding and 'Barbenheimer 2.0' that they ignored every red flag about the tone-deafness of the campaign."

"Blake’s 'themed press tour wardrobe' was so blatantly trying to catch that Margot Robbie lightning in a bottle. Margot’s looks were meticulously researched history; Blake’s were just 'wear your florals' and buy my hair care products."

"Blake Lively could not have been Barbie... she probably would have made atrocious changes to wardrobe demanding her own 'twist' on outfits."

"The 'Barbenheimer' thing was two masters like Gerwig and Nolan. Ryan and Blake trying to claim that same energy for a Marvel sequel and a Colleen Hoover adaptation is peak Hollywood delusion."

"Blake wanted to be seen as the 'producer-actress' powerhouse like Margot, but you can't market a movie about domestic violence like it's a Mattel toy commercial."

After the subpoena, Leslie G shared a follow-up post providing additional context about her experience as a domestic violence survivor (TW: domestic violence content).

This is one of several content creators who were subpoenaed by Blake and who were either domestic violence survivors themselves or had histories of being stalked and harassed. One of many whose privacy and dignity were violated by Blake. 

It's you, Blake. You're the one committing digital violence.

If they only knew…. Posting on Change.Org: Proven guilty of lies, of abuse, of intention of malice, Amber Heard should be replaced with a better actress and person she ruined the career of Johnny Depp bcoz of her lies... she caused him not only physical damage but also emotional damage during marriage and even after with her lies. Moreover she is a disgrace for every victim of domestic violence.

and since Blake Lively is a much likeable actress and human being.

Abuse has NO Gender. Justice for Johnny Depp. Amber Heard is the ABUSER.

⚖️ Breaking down the retaliation issue more simply (0:00–0:18)

• LGA revisits the retaliation discussion because it’s legally complex and easy to misunderstand
• The focus is on protected activity, which is a required element of any retaliation claim
• Without protected activity, the entire retaliation claim collapses

📌 What counts as protected activity (0:18–0:39)

• Protected activity means opposing or complaining about conduct that is illegal under California Fair Employment and Housing Act
• The court previously analyzed whether Lively had a subjective and objective reasonable belief that she was opposing unlawful conduct
• That “reasonable belief” standard is key to whether the claim can proceed

🌍 The location problem: New Jersey vs California (0:39–1:12)

• LGA explains the defense argument:
  • All alleged harassment occurred in New Jersey
  • Therefore, it is not covered by FEHA, which is a California law
• Because of that, the conduct cannot form the basis of a valid FEHA claim

🔗 Why this destroys “protected activity” (1:12–1:43)

• If the conduct wasn’t illegal under FEHA:
  • Then Lively could not reasonably believe she was opposing illegal conduct under FEHA
• Without that reasonable basis:
  • There is no protected activity
• And without protected activity:
  • There is no retaliation claim

🤸 The “jumping jacks” analogy (1:43–3:07)

• LGA uses a simplified example:
  • Imagine California bans doing three jumping jacks in a row
  • An employee in Wyoming sees people doing jumping jacks and reports it as illegal
• But:
  • Wyoming law allows it
  • California law doesn’t apply there
• So even if the employee believes it’s illegal, they are wrong — and their complaint is not protected

💡 Key takeaway from the analogy (3:07–3:22)

• A mistaken belief about the law is not enough
• The conduct must actually fall within the scope of the law being invoked
• Otherwise, the retaliation framework does not apply at all

🧠 Why the argument is so strong (3:22–3:31)

• LGA emphasizes this is a tight, logical legal argument
• It directly attacks a required element of the claim rather than disputing facts
• That makes it difficult to counter

⏳ Timing of the motion (3:31–3:49)

• LGA explains that filing this motion now is procedurally allowed
• Motions for judgment on the pleadings can be brought up until shortly before trial
• The timing aligns with the judge’s earlier ruling and guidance

⚖️ Will the judge be annoyed? (3:49–4:17)

• LGA doesn’t think the judge will be frustrated by this motion
• It is tied directly to the court’s prior order and raises a legitimate legal issue
• It may actually help streamline the trial by narrowing what needs to be decided

🎯 Final takeaway (4:17–end)

• This motion could eliminate the retaliation claim entirely if successful
• The argument hinges on a simple but powerful idea:
  • If the law never applied, you can’t claim protection under it

⚖️ A major new legal move (0:00–0:21)

• LGA explains that Wayfarer Studios, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, and TAG have renewed their motion for judgment on the pleadings
• This targets Lively’s retaliation claim under California Fair Employment and Housing Act
• LGA describes the argument as strategic and potentially case-changing

📍 The foundation: where the conduct happened (0:21–0:41)

• The defense builds on the court’s prior ruling that any alleged harassment occurred in New Jersey
• Because of that, those claims were already dismissed under FEHA due to extraterritorial limits
• FEHA generally does not apply to conduct outside California

🔗 The key argument: no unlawful conduct under FEHA (0:41–1:07)

• FEHA retaliation only applies if someone opposes conduct forbidden under FEHA
• The defense argues:
  • If the conduct happened outside California
  • Then it is not unlawful under FEHA
• Therefore, opposing that conduct cannot support a FEHA retaliation claim

🧠 The logic applied to Lively’s situation (1:07–1:28)

• LGA explains the defense position:
  • Lively was a New York resident
  • Filming occurred in New Jersey
  • The alleged conduct took place outside FEHA’s reach
• Therefore, she was never protected by FEHA in the first place

⚠️ Mistaken belief is not enough (1:28–2:11)

• The defense argues that even if Lively believed she was protected:
  • That belief does not create a valid claim
• FEHA only protects opposition to conduct that is actually unlawful under the statute
• A mistaken understanding of the law does not qualify

📉 Why this is a purely legal issue (2:11–2:30)

• LGA highlights that this argument does not depend on facts
• It is a legal question, meaning the judge can decide it without a jury
• This makes it powerful at this stage

💥 Potential impact if the motion succeeds (2:30–2:57)

• If the court agrees:
  • The FEHA retaliation claim is dismissed
  • Wayfarer Studios and TAG could both be removed from the case
• The jury would no longer need to evaluate retaliation at all

🔄 Ripple effect on other claims (2:57–3:10)

• LGA explains this would also eliminate the aiding and abetting claim against TAG
• That claim depends on the existence of a valid FEHA violation

🎯 Final takeaway (3:10–end)

• LGA calls the argument logically strong and strategically significant
• If successful, it could dramatically narrow the case down to just the contract claim
• She notes this is a critical moment and is watching closely how Lively will respond

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1304.0.pdf

⚖️ Two major dispositive motions just dropped (0:00–0:19)

• NAG explains that two significant legal motions have been filed that could reshape the case before trial even begins
• These include a summary judgment motion and a renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, both aimed at eliminating claims entirely
• Importantly, these were not random filings — the judge had previously signaled openness to these arguments, effectively inviting them

🧩 Motion 1: TAG shouldn’t be liable under FEHA (0:19–1:11)

• The first motion argues that TAG, as a PR firm, cannot be liable for aiding and abetting retaliation under California Fair Employment and Housing Act
• The defense emphasizes that FEHA is designed to regulate employment relationships and decisions, not external PR strategies
• Since TAG was not hiring, firing, managing, or supervising employees, they argue it falls completely outside FEHA’s scope

🤔 NAG’s long-standing skepticism (1:11–1:39)

• NAG points out she has consistently questioned how PR activity could legally qualify as an adverse employment action
• She highlights that reputation management and media strategy do not traditionally fit within employment law frameworks
• This motion directly addresses that gap, reinforcing her earlier concerns about the theory of the case

📌 Motion 2: The judge’s “hint” becomes a full argument (1:39–3:02)

• The second motion builds on a subtle but important footnote the judge included in his earlier ruling
• That footnote raised an unresolved legal issue about the geographic scope and applicability of FEHA
• The defense has now expanded that hint into a full legal argument, turning a passing comment into a central attack

🔗 The core legal theory (3:02–4:02)

• Retaliation claims require three elements: protected activity, adverse action, and a causal link between them
• The defense focuses on the first element, arguing that everything else collapses if protected activity doesn’t exist
• Their position is that the complaint itself must be tied to conduct that is actually unlawful under FEHA

💥 The central argument: no protected activity at all (4:02–4:51)

• The defense argues that if California law never applied to Lively’s situation, then she could not have been opposing a violation of that law
• Without a valid underlying legal violation, her complaints cannot qualify as protected activity
• This directly undercuts the entire retaliation claim at its foundation

⚠️ The “slippery slope” strategy (4:51–5:27)

• The motion warns that accepting Lively’s argument would create an overly broad legal precedent
• It would mean complaints about laws from any jurisdiction could trigger FEHA protections if harm is later felt in California
• NAG notes this is a classic legal tactic to show judges the unintended consequences of a ruling

🧠 Conflict with prior ruling (5:27–6:02)

• NAG highlights a tension between this argument and the judge’s earlier decision to let the retaliation claim proceed
• That earlier ruling relied on the idea that Lively may have had a reasonable belief that the law was violated
• The defense now argues that such a belief cannot be reasonable if the law objectively never applied

✍️ Why the motion is powerful (6:02–6:53)

• NAG praises the motion for being concise, strategic, and highly focused on a pure legal issue
• Because it doesn’t rely on disputed facts, the judge can decide it without involving a jury
• This makes it a strong tool for narrowing or eliminating claims before trial

📉 Massive impact if granted (6:53–7:48)

• If the court agrees with this argument, the entire FEHA retaliation claim would be dismissed
• That would likely remove Wayfarer Studios and TAG from the case altogether
• The case would shrink dramatically in scope, affecting both strategy and potential outcomes

🎯 Trial would become much simpler (7:48–8:20)

• Without FEHA claims, the jury would no longer need to evaluate complex issues like harassment, retaliation, or motive
• The focus would shift entirely to contract interpretation and whether it was breached
• This would streamline the trial and reduce the amount of emotionally charged evidence

⚖️ Why this favors the defense (8:20–8:34)

• NAG believes a contract-only case is significantly more favorable to the defense
• Contract disputes are more technical and less driven by narrative or perception
• This limits the plaintiff’s ability to rely on broader reputational or emotional arguments

🔥 Final takeaway (8:34–end)

• NAG describes the motion as a “banger” because of its clarity, precision, and potential impact
• If both dispositive motions succeed, FEHA would be completely removed from the case
• The outcome now heavily depends on how Lively’s legal team counters these arguments moving forward

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1295.0.pdf

So, just yesterday I was arguing with one of these pro blakers in the comments section (before their comments got deleted😄) who was trying to explain to me how idioms function because apparently I don't understand how the English language works according to them...anyways today I came across a post with the exact same illogical nonsense but from a poster using a different name...like I am still new to reddit so I dont know if you can post under multiple names or not...anyways..I went through the comments section and oh God, the lenghts these people have gone through, dissecting every aspect of the message just to convince each other its absolutely clean is shocking.

FYI: I challenge these morons to find a message like this in your partner's phone and do absolutely nothing, because its nothing, right!

post: https://www.reddit.com/r/CelebLegalDrama/s/huppYpoS2L

⚖️ TAG’s separate motion — what’s at stake (0:00–0:20)

• LGA explains that TAG has been allowed by the court to file a separate summary judgment motion
• This targets Lively’s claim for aiding and abetting retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
• This is a key issue that could further narrow the case

🧩 TAG’s core argument (0:20–0:59)

• TAG argues that FEHA liability typically applies in the employer-employee context
• They position themselves as a PR firm, not an entity making employment decisions
• Their role, they argue, is separate from anything governed by FEHA

📚 Comparing to similar cases (0:59–2:11)

• LGA explains cases where third parties can be liable under FEHA
• These involve situations where a company:
  • Outsources HR functions
  • Delegates employment-related decision-making

🤖 Why those cases are different (2:11–3:24)

• TAG distinguishes those cases by arguing:
  • Those third parties acted like the employer
  • They directly impacted employee-related decisions
• TAG says that is not what happened here
• Their work was unrelated to employment decisions

⚠️ The gray area: knowledge and intent (4:38–5:10)

• LGA raises a key question:
  • What if the third party knew their work would be used in a harmful or retaliatory way?
• This could complicate the analysis and potentially expand liability

📉 Policy concern: how far FEHA should go (5:10–5:49)

• Extending FEHA liability to third parties like TAG could be a significant expansion of the law
• There is little direct case law supporting such an extension
• Courts are generally cautious about creating new legal standards

🧑‍⚖️ Likely judicial approach (5:49–6:02)

• LGA suggests Judge Liman may be reluctant to expand FEHA in this way
• If forced to decide without a clear precedent, courts often avoid broad new interpretations

⏳ What happens next (6:02–6:17)

• Lively will have the opportunity to oppose TAG’s motion
• The issue will be fully briefed before the court decides

🎯 Final impact on the case (6:17–end)

• If TAG wins this motion:
  • The aiding and abetting claim is dismissed
  • Only two claims remain:
    • Contract claim
    • FEHA retaliation claim
• This would further narrow the case heading into trial