A YouTube content creator who had his private details requested by Blake Lively through a subpoena, is appealing for a protective order even though Lively has chosen to withdraw the subpoena.
37-year-old Lively requested for the private information of over a dozen journalists and independent content creators from Google and another entity, as part of her ongoing legal dispute with Justin Baldoni. This data was being sought amidst her ongoing legal conflict.
She faced a strong reaction, based on freedom of speech, and on Saturday, she withdrew the subpoenas relating to three independent content producers.
Conversely, Lauren Neidigh penned a letter to the judge on Monday, emphasizing that she still required a protective order against Lively, as there was a possibility that the actress might request her details at a later time.
In his letter, which the Daily Mail obtained, LethalLauren904 contended that Lively’s Subpoena aimed at individuals who criticized her online, yet there was no proof backing this action.
It was used to instill fear, disturb, and discourage freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution, and potentially endanger those unrelated to this lawsuit who have no involvement in it.
Daily Mail has contacted Lively’s representative for comment.
As a lifestyle expert, I found myself in a conundrum when trying to connect with Reese Lively’s legal team about her ongoing legal dispute with Baldoni. To my dismay, they seemed largely unreachable and failed to clarify the connection between my banking information and their client’s case.
She argued that even though Lively withdrew the subpoena, there’s a possibility she might reconsider, which could mean Neidigh continues to confront an ‘ongoing risk’ of ‘additional harassing discovery demands’ that would ‘intimidate her for her legal right to express herself.’
This paraphrase aims to maintain the original meaning while using simpler language and a more conversational tone.
Consequently, she asked for a restraining order to prevent further disclosure of her personal data by Lively, and additionally sought penalties against the actress.
In the preceding two days, Lively’s legal representatives notified the court about their choice to rescind subpoenas related to Neidigh and two additional creators.
A letter dated July 27th (obtained by the Daily Mail) was penned by Kassidy O’Connell, who disguised herself as ‘Jane Doe,’ and claimed to be one of the ’43 content creators’ served with a subpoena in bulk by Lively’s legal team.
Under the handle @kassidyoc, O’Connell voiced his disapproval of the extensive, bulk subpoena method.
The attorneys advised the judge against granting Lively’s request to dismiss the Third-Parties’ motions to dismiss as unnecessary, stating that doing so might enable the actress to bypass judicial scrutiny and show up as a court decision in her favor.
In a persistent legal disagreement, the spirited actress, who was once collaborating with Baldoni on ‘It Ends With Us’, alleges incidents of inappropriate behavior and reprisals. However, Baldoni strongly refutes these accusations.
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, I recently received subpoenas, which were later withdrawn, addressed to Google and a former entity known as Twitter. These legal documents sought personal information related to content creators Kassidy O’Connell, McKenzie Folks, and Neidigh.
Initially, the content creators objected vigorously. In a letter to the court, O’Connell stated, “There is absolutely no evidence or solid legal ground on which this subpoena was issued,” and referred to the wider endeavor as an “unfounded quest for information.
Neidigh agreed with the sentiment, stating that the subpoena was excessive and alleging that Lively’s team was trying to bully and intimidate small creators through harassment tactics.
It appears that the subpoenas are said to have demanded confidential data, such as credit card numbers and banking account particulars.
In a letter sent to the judge on July 26, Lively’s legal team explained that based on what the third parties have shared during meetings, said publicly, or included in their court documents, there is currently no need for more information from these specific third parties through the subpoenas. As a result, they have withdrawn the subpoenas regarding these third parties.
Although Lively’s legal team has stopped chasing these three people, they emphasized that the wider probe into the suspected online defamation campaign, allegedly masterminded by Baldoni’s team, continues.
The letter pointed out a text message, said to be from someone involved in Baldoni’s public relations work, which outlined strategies for a covert digital media operation intended to tarnish Lively’s reputation.
Lively’s representative clarified to Us Weekly that subpoenas aren’t the same as accusations. Instead, they’re used for collecting evidence that can be admitted in federal court. The creators aren’t being silenced; they’re expressing their views. This is a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Justin Baldoni and several other Wayfarer defendants, and they’re just trying to gather facts by seeking relevant information.
In their continued defense, Baldoni’s representative underscored the following: Just as they had stated earlier, the strategy devised by Baldoni’s rep aimed at protecting Justin Baldoni from potential allegations of sexual harassment by Blake Lively and others. This was achieved through a carefully planned media campaign intended to be “untraceable” and ultimately “bury” Ms. Lively. The subpoenas issued to social media companies are part of the larger puzzle, helping to piece together evidence of a campaign that was meticulously designed to leave no trace of its existence.
Lively’s legal team has additionally served summonses to vocal detractors of hers, which include Perez Hilton and Candace Owens.
(Summonses are legal documents demanding the appearance in court; “vocal detractors” refers to those who speak negatively about someone)
Recently, Lively attended a deposition at her lawyers’ office on July 31st. However, the session became more dynamic when Baldoni unexpectedly showed up to observe the courtroom action.
The trial for this matter has been scheduled for March 9, 2026, marking the time when all parties involved will present their cases in a court of law.
Previously, one of the lesser-known creators involved in the Lively-Justin legal dispute shared insights about their encounter with Variety.
Admittedly, it’s quite surprising, she said. I’ve never interacted with anyone in this field, and I hail from Kansas.
She went on saying, “It’s as if I’ve stepped into a Twilight Zone… This situation feels straight out of a film – a wealthy actress pursuing someone. It’s quite overwhelming.
John Genga, acting on behalf of entertainment journalist Kjersti Flaa, asserted to the media outlet that the subpoenas served to Lively were strategically intended to create an atmosphere of intimidation towards individuals who lack the resources to contest it, many of whom fall into this category.
As a dedicated admirer, I’d put it this way: “Just like any other person, they’re expressing their thoughts, which is their prerogative. However, we find it intrusive.
Simultaneously, a representative from Lively clarified that the subpoenas were not issued with the aim of suppressing content creators’ voices.
Read More
- Clash Royale Best Boss Bandit Champion decks
- Ethereum’s Golden Cross: $4,000 Rally? Hold Your Breath!
- Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 Gets Trial Experience On PS Plus Premium
- ESPN Might Drop Doris Burke From NBA Broadcast Team Next Season
- Chaos Zero Nightmare Combatant Tier List
- Kingdom Rush Battles Tower Tier List
- RAVEN2 redeem codes and how to use them (October 2025)
- Stocks stay snoozy as Moody’s drops U.S. credit—guess we’re all just waiting for the crash
- Millionaire Chicken Heir Johnny Ingham and Wife Rey Welcome Their First Baby!
- The Best Movies of 2025 So Far
2025-08-02 16:31