In Lively Baldoni Aftermath Motion for Sanctions Against Nathan Under Advisement

In Lively Baldoni Aftermath Motion for Sanctions Against Nathan Under Advisement by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 28 – After the Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni lawsuits, an order argument was held on October 28 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman. Inner City Press was there with live coverage, thread: Judge Liman: Take me through the timeline. Counsel Beckworthy: The subpoena sought the origin of the websites. RFP [Requests for Production] were sent to Ms. Nathan. Judge Liman: Were there any answers? Beckworth: They stood on their objections. On July 20, 2025 Ms Nathan swore she had no idea who was behind the websites. But the deposition of Katie Case was different. Then Mr. Wallace- Judge Liman: You're not seeking sanctions against Mr. Wallace? Beckworth: Not here. Judge Liman: Jurisdiction Judge Liman: What is the new statement you say is defamatory? Beckworth: They updated the website. Judge Liman: Doesn't the statute of limitations run from the first publication? Beckworth: This was a refresher, I think it gets us there. There is a scheme between Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace. They put up these websites, from another country, they punch up the algorithms and then they take journalists there. Judge Liman: I'm being asked about sanctions against Ms. Nathan Defense's Garafalo: Mr. Beckworth's motion IDs 12 documents. 2 were produced. We are down to 4. Judge Liman: I've looked at the documents. Some are about Ms. Jones. They are responsive. Garafalo: This is only a handful of documents.... This theory appears for the first time in the reply papers. This all started with the withdrawal of Ms. Abel. It is a fiction. We would like to supplement our briefing. Judge Liman: It is within the powers of this court to strike a defense Garafalo: Fraud on the court just isn't here. Judge Liman: If I conclude that Ms. Nathan lied in here depositions, are you saying the statute of limitations would preclude me from making a finding? This is now mostly about the recruitment of Ms. Abel Counsel Beckworth: My opponent tried to mislead the court- Judge Liman: That was not work with me. Mr. Garafalo has been credible. Beckworth: I'm asking for sanctions on the basis of failure to supplement. Beckworth: A party shouldn't be able to lie. I don't know what was in your mind but I read your November order. Mr. Case said, I need to defend my daughter, or will you? They didn't. I'll close with this. I sense you're troubled. You can find bad faith Beckworth: If we go to trial, you and the jury will be burdened with this. They (pointing at jury box) have a right to decide based on the truth, not a lie. Judge Liman: OK. Lodge anything with the court by tomorrow. Under advisement The background (one version) - Stephanie Jones and her PR firm Jonesworks sued Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios in December 2024, in a case that is a sideshow to, and a feeder for, Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, also before Judge Liman. Jones says Abel, her former vice president and Wayfarer’s day-to-day contact, left with the client in breach of her employment agreement, and that Nathan and the Wayfarer side induced it. She pleads tortious interference, breach and defamation claims. The Wayfarer parties counter that Jones was a “rogue publicist” who leaked to the Daily Mail, wrecked a truce with Lively’s publicist, seized Abel’s phone and laptop and passed Abel’s texts to Lively’s side, which later reached the New York Times with Lively’s complaint. Both sides filed summary judgment motions on October 15 and 16. Defendants argue that Jones is not the proper plaintiff on the contract claims because Jonesworks signed the agreements, that the non-compete is unenforceable, and that causation and damages are missing. Jones is moving on defendants’ counterclaims.  Jones’s motion for sanctions against Nathan (Dkt. 272-273, filed September 19) rests on documents that Katherine Case, a former Jonesworks and Nathan-firm employee, turned over voluntarily on September 16 and 17, after Jones sued her in state court. The brief says the texts show Nathan telling Case she had “another three or four grand just write something,” that the copy “needs to be a lot more meaty” about “holding clients hostage,” and that it had to be good enough to “point a journalist towards.” It also cites a $4,000 Zelle payment and the live link Nathan sent. Against that, Nathan swore in a verified interrogatory response that she “had no involvement in either to any extent.” At her September 30, 2025 deposition she answered “No” when asked whether she had a role in creating the Stephanie Jones Leaks website and agreed Case would be “lying” if she said otherwise. Jones asks for judgment on all claims against Nathan and for her defenses to be struck. She also wants leave to pursue defamation and interference claims against Nathan, an award of her expert’s costs and attorneys’ fees. In reply she proposed lesser sanctions: deemed-established facts, an adverse-inference jury instruction, reopened depositions of Nathan and Jed Wallace, and fees.  Nathan’s October 5 opposition calls the relief “draconian” and the motion “a thinly veiled motion for reconsideration,” because Judge Liman denied leave to add her to the defamation claim on March 26 (Dkt. 234, time-barred, no diligence) and dismissed the Eighth Cause of Action on September 17 (Dkt. 271). She also says Rule 37(b) needs a violated court order and there was none. Her further points are that the complaint already alleged she was behind the websites, so Jones was not prejudiced, that Jones has the documents now and can use them at summary judgment, and that the perjury claim is only a “credibility” dispute with Case. She calls the Case suit a “sham” filed to dodge the discovery cutoff. Jones’s October 12 reply says Nathan “does not deny” any of the three core points: that she lied, that she had the documents, and that she withheld them. It adds that the declaration of Nathan’s lawyer about why Case produced is contradicted by emails from Case’s own counsel, and cites an October 6 New York Times article on smear-site campaigns. Judge Liman heard argument and took it under advisement. Back on February 6, a  book "Hollywood Hearsay," ranging from the CRD complaint in California o Jed Wallace's new case in Texas, comparing SDNY defamation cases, from Sarah Palin through Devin Nunes v Rachel Maddow. Book here, Audiobook here More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here, Buy Me a Coffee here *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com SDNY Press Room 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com