@PrincessKikiM98 is Princess-Kiki-ing her brains out again. FFS!! How adorable of @PrincessKikiM98 to confidently present allegations as established facts. Obvs. there’s a “very clear paper trail,” complete with invoice payments from Baldoni’s company to a digital fixer & plans by Baldoni’s team to smear other women. Five women in total? Well... how fascinating. 🙄🙄 Perhaps before celebrating those claims as gospel, @PrincessKikiM98 might want to start with the actual evidence supposedly proving a smear campaign targeting #BlakeLively. Because, as far as I’m aware, her own legal team failed to provide evidence establishing the sweeping allegations you’re so eager to repeat. And wasn’t #BlakeLively herself unable, during her deposition, to identify specific content allegedly authored by Baldoni—whether a social media post, an article, a video, or anything else that could substantiate the claim? But sure, let’s skip the inconvenient business of demonstrating what allegedly happened & jump straight to declaring that five women were targeted. Who needs verifiable evidence when a dramatic narrative is so much more entertaining, right, @PrincessKikiM98, 🤡🤡!! @PrincessKikiM98, there’s a difference between repeating allegations & proving them. Perhaps take a little detour out of your self-appointed reality bubble & visit the land of substantiated facts, evidence & Judge Liman's order. You might actually learn something new. 🤓🤓 #BlakeLively #ItEndsWithUs #PrincessKikiM98 #ShowTheEvidence #ReceiptsPlease #FactsOverNarratives #AllegationsAreNotProof

Yes, completely agree. And just to add a few details that make this whole saga even more interesting… (1) #StephanieJones had already contacted #Edgeworth Security Services LLC on May 8, 2025—the very company alleged to have harvested everything from Jen Abel’s iPhone. So... planning & scheming with #BlakeLively... 🤔🤔 (2) #StephanieJones’ position that 16 of the 34 exhibits submitted in support of the #WayfarerParties’ motion for summary judgment should be sealed in their entirety rather than merely redacted is quite something. Apparently when it comes to protecting #StephanieJones’ interests, even targeted redactions are not enough. Why settle for concealing sensitive information when you can ask to conceal the entire exhibits? How very convenient of #StephanieJones!! (3) And yet in the separate #AmandaGhost vs. #RebelWilson legal saga, the apparent attitude toward producing documents from #StephanieJones’ company was rather different. The Agency Group PR LLC & #MelissaNathan petitioned the New York court to quash a discovery subpoena served on nonparty #Jonesworks by California litigants #AmandaGhost, Gregor Cameron & Vince Holden. xitter.cf/schatow/status/2109751… But Jonesworks’ own position? It had no objection to producing the requested materials & stood “ready and willing” to do so. No objection to production from #Jonesworks itself. So let me get this straight: when documents about the #WayfarerParties are sought from #Jonesworks, #StephanieJones is ready & willing to produce them; when 16 exhibits supporting the #WayfarerParties’ motion for summary judgment are at issue, the argument is to seal 16 of them in its entirety. Transparency for thee, secrecy for meee... #StephanieJones? 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️

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