In the latest twist in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, Blake Lively’s legal team has filed a powerful motion to compel discovery, accusing Wayfarer and its co-defendants of stonewalling, concealing communications, and manipulating privilege claims to evade accountability. The 28-page motion, filed August 4, 2025, delivers a detailed and strategic attack on the defense’s discovery failures, placing the use of encrypted messaging apps, joint PR conspiracies, and missing phone records at the center of an unfolding scandal.

From deleted Signal messages to improperly withheld privilege logs, the filing reads like a roadmap of modern litigation abuse. But it’s more than a list of complaints. It’s a sharp, forensic legal document with an eye toward sanctions, preclusion, and even potential adverse inference instructions at trial.

The Foundation: A Pattern of Withholding

The motion begins by outlining how Wayfarer has allegedly failed to produce basic discovery: messages surrounding Lively’s December 2024 termination, follow-up communications with key witnesses, and Signal app data. These aren’t technical oversights. They cut to the heart of Lively’s claims: retaliation, smear campaigns, and orchestrated reputational harm.

Lively’s team notes that not one message from the central production meeting on December 15, 2024, a meeting at which her fate was sealed, has been turned over. This despite multiple defendants, including Justin Baldoni and Stephanie Abel, referencing it in depositions.

Signal, Silence, and Spoliation

Perhaps most damning is the revelation that the defendants continued using Signal which is a self-deleting messaging app after litigation began and after Lively’s team had explicitly asked them not to. Baldoni and Abel both admitted to using Signal, yet produced nothing. This creates a strong presumption of either spoliation or intentional evasion of discovery.

Citing the DR Distributors case, the motion argues for potential Rule 37(e) sanctions, including adverse inference findings. The Court may even entertain the appointment of a forensic examiner to assess whether key evidence has been lost forever.

Privilege Games: The Wallace Conspiracy

The motion also dissects an alleged PR war waged by Wayfarer and its allies, including Jed Wallace, Nathan, Abel, and TAG Strategies. These parties, according to the filing, were not providing legal advice but were coordinating media attacks, podcast appearances, and leaks to the press. As such, Lively’s team argues that any privilege claim tied to these communications is invalid.

Not only are such communications not protected under the attorney-client or work-product doctrines, but Lively’s team notes that defendants failed to even log many of them. That failure, under established precedent, constitutes waiver.

Deposition Disruption and Misuse of Objections

In depositions, defense counsel allegedly instructed witnesses not to answer entire lines of questioning often under the guise of vague privilege objections. The motion catalogs a series of evasions and obstructionist tactics, particularly during Abel and Nathan’s depositions, and seeks re-examination of key witnesses.

Lively’s legal team isn’t merely asking for documents. They want the Court to:

• Order re-productions of withheld messages
• Re-depose witnesses at the defendants’ expense
• Compel in-camera review of disputed communications
• Sanction parties who improperly used privilege as a shield

A Tactical Masterpiece

This motion is not just a list of discovery grievances—it’s a calibrated strike aimed at forcing transparency before trial. It blends legal authority, factual contradictions, and narrative coherence. It also signals that Lively’s team is preparing the record for appeal-proof sanctions or trial-level evidentiary relief.

The defendants are now backed into a corner. Either they explain the missing data, waive their privileges, or risk losing critical defenses.

One thing is clear: the days of hiding behind Signal and PR consultants may be numbered.