Earlier this year, a federal judge described the contentious and financially demanding lawsuits between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni regarding the production and release of It Ends With Us as essentially “a feud between PR firms.” This characterization highlights the underlying public relations dynamics at play in high-profile entertainment disputes.

In March, Judge Lewis J. Liman hinted at deeper issues, and Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, concurs, albeit with a different interpretation. “We are just beginning to uncover a much larger and more insidious scheme,” Freedman stated today as new legal documents targeting Baldoni’s former PR firm, Jonesworks, and its founder, Stephanie Jones, were filed. “To be clear, both Jones and Jonesworks share responsibility for this misconduct.”

Watch on Deadline

On the opposing side, Jones’ attorney, Kristen Tahler, argues that Baldoni’s team’s latest actions, including their decision not to amend their initial $400 million complaint, reveal a mere “shell game.” “Reversing course, dropping previously emphasized claims, and issuing a convoluted statement—this is a desperate tactic from a team that seems to acknowledge they’re in trouble,” Tahler commented to Deadline. “Their lack of a solid defense against the evidence presented is quite revealing.”

Notably, following the revelation of a discreet subpoena-driven lawsuit from Lively last summer, a wave of new filings and counterclaims emerged late Thursday from Baldoni, publicists Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, among others, casting significant doubt on the credibility of the Another Simple Favor star. This includes accusations against Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s publicist Leslie Sloane, and the New York Times, as Baldoni and Freedman escalate their offensive against his former representative.

The conflict intensified with a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint filed by Lively on December 20 with California’s Civil Rights Department, followed by a New York Times exposé the next day regarding IEWU and an alleged smear campaign orchestrated by Baldoni’s team to undermine the actress. Central to this high-profile dispute are seemingly incriminating text messages and other communications from Abel and Nathan, which were reportedly obtained from Abel’s confiscated phone after her departure from Jonesworks last summer. It has been suggested that Jones provided this damaging material due to a subpoena.

Until recently, the source of that subpoena remained unclear.

Now, as the trial date of March 9, 2026, approaches, it appears the subpoena originated from a September action by a company named Vanzan against ten unnamed defendants. However, the question remains: how did they target Stephanie Jones and Abel’s phone?

“Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the sham lawsuit was orchestrated by the Lively Parties and Jones, working together to facilitate and conceal Jones’ release of data extracted from Abel’s phone under the guise of legal proceedings, avoiding detection by interested parties like Abel, who could have intervened to halt this blatant abuse of process,” Freedman stated in a countersuit and amended response to Jones’ previous suit.

Following the recent federal court filing, Freedman remarked to Deadline: “Given the new evidence surfacing almost daily, it’s crucial for us to amend our counterclaims against Stephanie Jones and Jonesworks.”

As Lively and her Deadpool superstar husband, Reynolds, graced the red carpet at the 2025 TIME100 gala, Freedman added: “We are not surprised that Ms. Jones would instruct her legal team to misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the dubious ‘subpoena’ and Vanzan lawsuit, which was impressively uncovered by a dedicated group of online investigators. A brief glance at the ‘Van-sham’ lawsuit reveals that the Lively Parties have been caught in their own smear campaign, deliberately bypassing standard procedures for improper purposes by fabricating a farcical complaint with an unrelated plaintiff and no named defendants, ensuring that no one would know or object to their attempt to obtain information they were not entitled to.”

“To suggest—as Vanzan (Lively and Reynolds) do in their secret ‘complaint’—that they are unaware of the identities of their own employees and contractual counterparts is utterly absurd,” Freedman continued.

“We reiterate that there has never been a smear campaign, except for the one being waged by the Lively Parties and Ms. Jones in collaboration with the New York Times. We will persist in our efforts to expose and hold accountable those responsible and uncover the truth.”

In the only significant addition to the amended complaint, the counterclaims from Freedman and other attorneys for Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios, executives, and publicists assert:

Accordingly, on September 27, 2024, in collaboration with Jones and Jonesworks, the Lively Parties and their counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (“Manatt”) initiated a sham legal proceeding in New York state court, Vanzan, Inc. v. Does 1-10, inclusive. This sham lawsuit was merely a transparent attempt to gain subpoena power. The Plaintiff, Vanzan, Inc. (“Vanzan”), is an inactive corporate entity linked to Lively and Reynolds and entirely unrelated to the Film or the Wayfarer Parties. The lawsuit claims three causes of action: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and faithless servant against Doe defendants only. The lawsuit fails to clarify how or why Vanzan could not identify the proper defendants, particularly in the context of a breach of contract claim.

Instead, Vanzan (Lively and Reynolds) and Manatt implausibly claim ignorance of the identities of their own contractual counterparts or their own “employees, contractors, agents, or representatives.” The lawsuit lacks specific allegations against anyone, especially Abel, relying solely on generalized legal jargon. Notably, Vanzan never requested the assignment of a judge, substituted the Doe defendants for named parties, or served the complaint on any defendant. The only entries on the docket are the complaint and a notice of dismissal filed on December 19, 2024, just before Lively filed her CRD Complaint against the Wayfarer Parties.

The same day the lawsuit was filed, September 27, 2024, Jones warned a departing employee not to work for Abel because “her business wouldn’t be around much longer.”

The amended filing for Abel further states that the ex-Jonesworks publicist and other members of Baldoni’s inner circle were unaware of the lawsuit or the subpoenas, which they claim was the intention of Team Blake.

As orchestrated by the parties, upon receiving the sham subpoena, on or about October 1, 2024, Jones and Jonesworks willingly surrendered the entire contents of Abel’s iPhone communications for a second time, creating an appearance of legitimacy and providing Jones and Jonesworks plausible deniability once the New York Times supported Lively. It is on this basis that Jones’ and Jonesworks’ counsel later described responding to a “court-ordered subpoena.”

As this new front in the conflict between Lively and the WME-backed Baldoni intensifies, Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and the New York Times are all seeking to be dismissed from Baldoni’s escalating $400 million defamation and extortion lawsuit. While outcomes remain uncertain, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the Gray Lady exit the stage soon.