Pinned Tweet
Cate Blanchett wondered why #MeToo got “killed very quickly,” and honestly, people are acting like we didn’t all just watch @blakelively help put the final nail in it.
Lively’s fantastical sexual harassment claims got tossed by Judge Liman, yet the public is somehow still expected to applaud the performance like it was some fearless act of truth-telling… 🤡🤡
Her attorney, Sigrid McCawley, said Lively was focused on “exposing the digital retaliation campaign here that was weaponised against her.” Great — and the ideal place to expose the alleged retaliatory campaign would’ve been… court. You know, that inconvenient little place where evidence gets examined instead of curated through entertainment outlets and Instagram captions.
But somehow this “exposing” turned into dropping the claim, settling the lawsuit by @blakelively and then speed-running to the Met Gala three hours later dressed like the curtains from a condemned Versailles timeshare. Nothing says “I’m determined to expose the digital retaliation campaign” quite like abandoning the battlefield and immediately posing for Vogue photographers under chandelier lighting.
@blakelively doesn’t get to brand herself as bravely fighting injustice and then quietly exit before having to prove any of it under oath. At some point, people stop seeing Lively’s activism and start seeing luxury victimhood with a glam team attached.
You suck #blakelively / xoxo
Cate Blanchett in #Cannes:
"It's very disconcerting if you've found that you've worked with someone or are working with someone who has behaved in ways that are reprehensible."
Roman Schatow retweeted
WF’S OPPOSITION TO SJ’S SEALING LETTER-MOTION
Defendants—Wayfarer Parties (WF)—ask Judge Liman to reject #Jonesworks’ request to keep multiple summary-judgment exhibits fully sealed, arguing only limited redactions are justified.
According to WF #Jonesworks’ request to keep 16 exhibits & one email exhibit entirely under seal is overbroad, not narrowly tailored & inconsistent with the strong presumption of public access—especially because the materials are used to support (and rebut) summary judgment on damages and termination issues. WF propose limited redactions only for truly confidential line-items (e.g., certain client rate/payment figures, employee personal data & actual settlement amounts), while filing the rest publicly.
1️⃣ What #Jonesworks is trying to seal
#Jonesworks seeks “continued sealing” of:
— Garofalo Exhibits: “Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21, 24–29, 32 & 33” and
— Heath Exhibit E: an email chain.
The narrow categories #Jonesworks relies on two categories:
— “client rates and payments” and
— “settlement negotiations.”
WF argue that sealing entire exhibits based on those limited grounds fails the narrow-tailoring requirement: “Yet it asks the Court to seal sixteen exhibits in their entirety… That request is not narrowly tailored, and the Court should deny it.”
WF’s main argument is:
1. These are judicial documents used for summary judgment (high public-access weight).
2. Even if some portions contain sensitive numbers that does not justify sealing whole documents.
3. Redaction—not wholesale sealing—is the correct remedy.
2️⃣ Exhibit-by-exhibit substance: why these materials matter to the merits
(A) Client agreements & invoices (Garofalo Exhibits 24–29, 32, 33)
#Jonesworks argues these reveal negotiated rates for non-party clients. WF respond that #Jonesworks itself made these engagements central by seeking lost profits: “Jonesworks put those very engagements at issue by seeking lost-profit damages…”
WF further argue their summary judgment motion depends on the agreements’ substantive terms: The motion “relies on each client’s contract term, rate, notice provisions, and reasons for departing to show that Abel caused no loss.”
Direct rebuttal to #Jonesworks’ “we’re not hiding relied-upon facts” claim: “Jonesworks’ representation that it does not seek to shield ‘any fact on which the Wayfarer Parties’ motion actually relies’ is therefore incorrect.”
Their proposed solution for these exhibits: “At most, Jonesworks may redact rate and payment figures for non-party clients…; the remaining contractual terms, dates, and client identities should be public.”
(B) Discovery responses & expert materials (Garofalo Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21)
#Jonesworks characterises these as mere compilations of rates/payment information. WF dispute that characterisation: “Jonesworks contends these exhibits merely ‘compile[]’ rate and payment information… They do far more.”
What WF say is inside Exhibits 18 & 19: “identify witnesses, claimed damages, and describe… communications concerning Abel’s departure and the alleged breaches.”
What WF say is inside Exhibits 20 & 21 (expert reports): “Plaintiffs’ expert reports… analyze Jonesworks’ claimed reputational harm and assumptions made for damages calculations.”
WF underscore relevance to dispositive motion practice: “These materials go to the heart of Plaintiffs’ damages theories, which the motion addresses directly.”
Redaction vs. sealing: “Jonesworks offers no reason why any information beyond specific rate and payment figures warrants sealing, and it does not explain why redactions would be insufficient.”
BUT… “Defendants do not object to redactions of Jonesworks’ employees’ salary or personal information.”
(C) Email chain (Heath Exhibit E)
#Jonesworks calls it confidential settlement negotiations. WF say that characterisation is mostly wrong: “Jonesworks characterizes this exhibit as ‘confidential settlement negotiations.’… Most of it is not.”
What the email chain contains—primarily operational/business communications:
— “August 2024 business correspondence concerning Jonesworks’ performance, staffing, and the parties’ relationship…” It also includes:
— Jones’s statement “that the contract contained no termination clause”
— Wayfarer’s “termination notice”
— and “Ms. Jones’ $200,000 demand.”
Why the email chain matters to summary judgment: “the timeline and grounds for termination and the fees Jonesworks claims.”
Why the $200,000 figure should not be sealed: “Jonesworks itself seeks the $200,000 as damages, so that figure cannot be confidential.”
BUT… “Any legitimate interest is limited to the specific compromise figures exchanged, which can be redacted.”
3️⃣ Requested relief
WF ask the Court to “deny Jonesworks’ request to maintain the Exhibits under seal in their entirety” and require redactions limited to:
1. “rate and payment figures for non-party clients not addressed in the motion,”
2. “former Jonesworks’ employees’ salary and personal information,” and
3. “settlement amounts in Heath Exhibit E,”
with “all remaining portions filed publicly.”
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
SJ’S SEALING LETTER-MOTION
Plaintiffs—Stephanie Jones & Jonesworks LLC (SJ)—seek continued sealing of specific exhibits submitted in support of the Wayfarer Parties’ (WF) motion for summary judgment.
Exhibits: The sealing request covers Garofalo Declaration Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21, 24–29, 32 & 33, plus Heath Declaration Exhibit E.
Category 1—Business terms: SJ seeks to protect #Jonesworks’ confidential/proprietary client rates and payment information, arguing disclosure could allow competitors to undercut pricing and harm non-party clients who expected confidentiality.
Garofalo content: SJ argues that the Garofalo Exhibits include non-party client agreements, invoices & materials compiling the same rate/payment information (e.g., discovery responses, expert reports, testimony).
Category 2—Settlement talks: SJ seeks to seal Heath Exhibit E because it contains confidential settlement negotiations between #Wayfarer & #Jonesworks.
Relevance of settlement terms: SJ argues that the summary judgment motion does not rely on the settlement offer amount/terms & there is a public interest in encouraging candid settlement discussions.
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
WF’S OPPOSITION TO SJ’S SEALING LETTER-MOTION
Defendants—Wayfarer Parties (WF)—ask Judge Liman to reject #Jonesworks’ request to keep multiple summary-judgment exhibits fully sealed, arguing only limited redactions are justified.
According to WF #Jonesworks’ request to keep 16 exhibits & one email exhibit entirely under seal is overbroad, not narrowly tailored & inconsistent with the strong presumption of public access—especially because the materials are used to support (and rebut) summary judgment on damages and termination issues. WF propose limited redactions only for truly confidential line-items (e.g., certain client rate/payment figures, employee personal data & actual settlement amounts), while filing the rest publicly.
1️⃣ What #Jonesworks is trying to seal
#Jonesworks seeks “continued sealing” of:
— Garofalo Exhibits: “Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21, 24–29, 32 & 33” and
— Heath Exhibit E: an email chain.
The narrow categories #Jonesworks relies on two categories:
— “client rates and payments” and
— “settlement negotiations.”
WF argue that sealing entire exhibits based on those limited grounds fails the narrow-tailoring requirement: “Yet it asks the Court to seal sixteen exhibits in their entirety… That request is not narrowly tailored, and the Court should deny it.”
WF’s main argument is:
1. These are judicial documents used for summary judgment (high public-access weight).
2. Even if some portions contain sensitive numbers that does not justify sealing whole documents.
3. Redaction—not wholesale sealing—is the correct remedy.
2️⃣ Exhibit-by-exhibit substance: why these materials matter to the merits
(A) Client agreements & invoices (Garofalo Exhibits 24–29, 32, 33)
#Jonesworks argues these reveal negotiated rates for non-party clients. WF respond that #Jonesworks itself made these engagements central by seeking lost profits: “Jonesworks put those very engagements at issue by seeking lost-profit damages…”
WF further argue their summary judgment motion depends on the agreements’ substantive terms: The motion “relies on each client’s contract term, rate, notice provisions, and reasons for departing to show that Abel caused no loss.”
Direct rebuttal to #Jonesworks’ “we’re not hiding relied-upon facts” claim: “Jonesworks’ representation that it does not seek to shield ‘any fact on which the Wayfarer Parties’ motion actually relies’ is therefore incorrect.”
Their proposed solution for these exhibits: “At most, Jonesworks may redact rate and payment figures for non-party clients…; the remaining contractual terms, dates, and client identities should be public.”
(B) Discovery responses & expert materials (Garofalo Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21)
#Jonesworks characterises these as mere compilations of rates/payment information. WF dispute that characterisation: “Jonesworks contends these exhibits merely ‘compile[]’ rate and payment information… They do far more.”
What WF say is inside Exhibits 18 & 19: “identify witnesses, claimed damages, and describe… communications concerning Abel’s departure and the alleged breaches.”
What WF say is inside Exhibits 20 & 21 (expert reports): “Plaintiffs’ expert reports… analyze Jonesworks’ claimed reputational harm and assumptions made for damages calculations.”
WF underscore relevance to dispositive motion practice: “These materials go to the heart of Plaintiffs’ damages theories, which the motion addresses directly.”
Redaction vs. sealing: “Jonesworks offers no reason why any information beyond specific rate and payment figures warrants sealing, and it does not explain why redactions would be insufficient.”
BUT… “Defendants do not object to redactions of Jonesworks’ employees’ salary or personal information.”
(C) Email chain (Heath Exhibit E)
#Jonesworks calls it confidential settlement negotiations. WF say that characterisation is mostly wrong: “Jonesworks characterizes this exhibit as ‘confidential settlement negotiations.’… Most of it is not.”
What the email chain contains—primarily operational/business communications:
— “August 2024 business correspondence concerning Jonesworks’ performance, staffing, and the parties’ relationship…” It also includes:
— Jones’s statement “that the contract contained no termination clause”
— Wayfarer’s “termination notice”
— and “Ms. Jones’ $200,000 demand.”
Why the email chain matters to summary judgment: “the timeline and grounds for termination and the fees Jonesworks claims.”
Why the $200,000 figure should not be sealed: “Jonesworks itself seeks the $200,000 as damages, so that figure cannot be confidential.”
BUT… “Any legitimate interest is limited to the specific compromise figures exchanged, which can be redacted.”
3️⃣ Requested relief
WF ask the Court to “deny Jonesworks’ request to maintain the Exhibits under seal in their entirety” and require redactions limited to:
1. “rate and payment figures for non-party clients not addressed in the motion,”
2. “former Jonesworks’ employees’ salary and personal information,” and
3. “settlement amounts in Heath Exhibit E,”
with “all remaining portions filed publicly.”
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
SJ’S SEALING LETTER-MOTION
Plaintiffs—Stephanie Jones & Jonesworks LLC (SJ)—seek continued sealing of specific exhibits submitted in support of the Wayfarer Parties’ (WF) motion for summary judgment.
Exhibits: The sealing request covers Garofalo Declaration Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21, 24–29, 32 & 33, plus Heath Declaration Exhibit E.
Category 1—Business terms: SJ seeks to protect #Jonesworks’ confidential/proprietary client rates and payment information, arguing disclosure could allow competitors to undercut pricing and harm non-party clients who expected confidentiality.
Garofalo content: SJ argues that the Garofalo Exhibits include non-party client agreements, invoices & materials compiling the same rate/payment information (e.g., discovery responses, expert reports, testimony).
Category 2—Settlement talks: SJ seeks to seal Heath Exhibit E because it contains confidential settlement negotiations between #Wayfarer & #Jonesworks.
Relevance of settlement terms: SJ argues that the summary judgment motion does not rely on the settlement offer amount/terms & there is a public interest in encouraging candid settlement discussions.
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
Roman Schatow retweeted
SJ’S SEALING LETTER-MOTION
Plaintiffs—Stephanie Jones & Jonesworks LLC (SJ)—seek continued sealing of specific exhibits submitted in support of the Wayfarer Parties’ (WF) motion for summary judgment.
Exhibits: The sealing request covers Garofalo Declaration Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21, 24–29, 32 & 33, plus Heath Declaration Exhibit E.
Category 1—Business terms: SJ seeks to protect #Jonesworks’ confidential/proprietary client rates and payment information, arguing disclosure could allow competitors to undercut pricing and harm non-party clients who expected confidentiality.
Garofalo content: SJ argues that the Garofalo Exhibits include non-party client agreements, invoices & materials compiling the same rate/payment information (e.g., discovery responses, expert reports, testimony).
Category 2—Settlement talks: SJ seeks to seal Heath Exhibit E because it contains confidential settlement negotiations between #Wayfarer & #Jonesworks.
Relevance of settlement terms: SJ argues that the summary judgment motion does not rely on the settlement offer amount/terms & there is a public interest in encouraging candid settlement discussions.
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
SJ’S SEALING LETTER-MOTION
Plaintiffs—Stephanie Jones & Jonesworks LLC (SJ)—seek continued sealing of specific exhibits submitted in support of the Wayfarer Parties’ (WF) motion for summary judgment.
Exhibits: The sealing request covers Garofalo Declaration Exhibits 5, 12, 18–21, 24–29, 32 & 33, plus Heath Declaration Exhibit E.
Category 1—Business terms: SJ seeks to protect #Jonesworks’ confidential/proprietary client rates and payment information, arguing disclosure could allow competitors to undercut pricing and harm non-party clients who expected confidentiality.
Garofalo content: SJ argues that the Garofalo Exhibits include non-party client agreements, invoices & materials compiling the same rate/payment information (e.g., discovery responses, expert reports, testimony).
Category 2—Settlement talks: SJ seeks to seal Heath Exhibit E because it contains confidential settlement negotiations between #Wayfarer & #Jonesworks.
Relevance of settlement terms: SJ argues that the summary judgment motion does not rely on the settlement offer amount/terms & there is a public interest in encouraging candid settlement discussions.
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
Roman Schatow retweeted
This is far from over.
#DayDrinker starring Johnny Depp, Madelyn Cline, and Penélope Cruz – in theaters March 26, 2027.
#BlakeLively asked for $8 million & got $407,451.75 — about 5% of her request.
#AmandaGhost asked for $15 million & got $10 — a whopping 0.0000667%.
One gets hundreds of thousands. The other gets enough to buy lunch.
#BlunderbussPlaintiffs #Lively #Ghost
@DeadlineDominic: Another another win for #RebelWilson. 🥳🥳
Yesterday: #AmandaGhost’s entire wish list of #sanctions against #RebelWilson got DENIED. She spent $50,000 just to get a masterclass in disappointment. 💸😂 FIFTY GRAND down the drain & not a single wish granted.
Today: #AmandaGhost & the co-producers of #TheDeb walked away with $10. TEN. DOLLARS. 💸😂 Meanwhile, #RebelWilson countersued & was awarded almost $400,000. Imagine spending a fortune on lawyers just to leave court with less than the price of lunch. 😎😎
theguardian.com/film/2026/oc…
#RebelWilson #AmandaGhost #TheDeb #TenDollarWin #400KForRebel #WishListDenied #HollywoodDrama #WhenTheLawsuitBackfires #RebelWilsonWins
Roman Schatow retweeted
This is Benjamin Yoho, and his wife. He is the dude who appears to be responsible for Vivek Ramaswamy's ad, which attacked child Rape Victim, Amy Acton.
Once again. Here he is.
ORDER RE: SJ'S EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF HER MSJ
#StephanieJones unseal your 4 exhibits. Just a friendly reminder: redact the sensitive personally identifiable information first.
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
Sorry but I have to laugh. LOL!!
#StephanieJones files a 13½-page memorandum in support of her motion for summary judgment—well within the 40-page limit—along with SEVEN exhibits and a letter-motion seeking to seal four of them.
But here comes the twist: the #WayfarerParties have now informed the judge that “The Wayfarer Parties do not ask that these exhibits remain sealed.”
Reading between the lines: #Stephanie, we’re already getting a little tired of these 'sealing games' alla your co-conspirator / co-schemer—#BlakeLively.
And a small reminder, #Stephanie: if these exhibits are going to become publicly accessible, please make sure any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is properly redacted before uploading them. You’ve already had that particular misstep once. It would be very very silly to repeat the same shitty mistake again.
#StephanieJones #BlakeLively #WayfarerParties #MotionForSummaryJudgment #MSJ #LivelyvsBaldoni #JonesvsAbel #Jonesworks
Roman Schatow retweeted
This guy made the Vivek ad.
Please don't use the internet in this case.
That would be very wrong.
Hope the København's outfit is included!! 😃😃
Cyndi Lauper is revisiting — and letting go of — over four decades of music, fashion and personal memories with “Cyndi Lauper: Suitcase of Memories,” an exhibition and auction at Bonhams in New York.
#CyndiLauper
THIS is going to be legendary! Two of my favourite women, the Prince & the one and only chatty Graham! What a lineup!) 🥰🥰
Mister Frodo, @elijahwood, has aged like a fine French wine… and those grey hairs only make him more 😉😉 SKÅL 🍷🍷 (I am sure he understands this.)
Guy Ritchie’s 'The Gentlemen' is adding a few more gentlemen (and ladies) for its third season, which has started production in UK and Morocco.
Joining the Theo James-starring series are Orlando Bloom, Robert Carlyle, Elijah Wood, Dexter Fletcher, and Bruna Marquezine, as well as Ed Speleers, Saffron Burrows, and Bugzy Malone.
See who's not coming back here: deadline.com/2026/10/the-gen…
(Photos: Getty, Netflix)
Roman Schatow retweeted
@DeadlineDominic: Another another win for #RebelWilson. 🥳🥳
Yesterday: #AmandaGhost’s entire wish list of #sanctions against #RebelWilson got DENIED. She spent $50,000 just to get a masterclass in disappointment. 💸😂 FIFTY GRAND down the drain & not a single wish granted.
Today: #AmandaGhost & the co-producers of #TheDeb walked away with $10. TEN. DOLLARS. 💸😂 Meanwhile, #RebelWilson countersued & was awarded almost $400,000. Imagine spending a fortune on lawyers just to leave court with less than the price of lunch. 😎😎
theguardian.com/film/2026/oc…
#RebelWilson #AmandaGhost #TheDeb #TenDollarWin #400KForRebel #WishListDenied #HollywoodDrama #WhenTheLawsuitBackfires #RebelWilsonWins
@DeadlineDominic, don’t forget to report that #AmandaGhost’s sanctions wish list against #RebelWilson was DENIED. All of it. But sure, facts are optional, right? OKI DOKI?! 🫡🫡
I love Judi Dench!! 🥰🥰
Dame Judi Dench played ‘M’ in James Bond for eight years – longer than any actor has played Bond himself.
She tells @emmabarnett about being invited to lunch with the real-life head of MI6.
Roman Schatow retweeted
Jay-Z/Carter v. Buzbee et al. (SDNY) - Judge Ho has set oral argument for December 11 at 10AM.
This follows the recent briefing on the motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and the motion to strike.
#JayZ #TonyBuzbee #docketupdates
