The high-stakes legal feud involving Hollywood heavyweights Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds against Wayfair Studios and Justin Baldoni has taken a dramatic turn, revealing a critical error in strategy. The couple’s most significant mistake was not the highly publicized allegations or the fierce legal battles, but their persistent partnership with former ally, Stephanie Jones.

Court maneuvers and leaked information indicate that this continued alignment, particularly involving Jones’s company, Vanzan, and her own legal troubles, is systematically undermining Lively’s credibility and position as a victim in the eyes of the court. Judge Lyman, who presides over the disputes, appears to hold little sympathy for Jones, and Lively’s association may prove fatal to her claims.

I. The Collusion Conundrum: Lively’s Ill-Fated Interjection

The core of the legal exposure lies in a recent, ill-advised attempt by Blake Lively’s legal team to intervene in Stephanie Jones’s motion to compel against a third party, Katie Casease.

The Untimely Motion

Lively tried to interject and compel documents for a subpoena she didn’t even issue, related to a case that was fundamentally Stephanie Jones’s. This move was made well after the fact discovery deadline had closed. Lively’s attorney, Kristen Towler, argued the necessity of the documents due to alleged “spoilation” and inconsistencies between testimonies, but the argument was found unpersuasive.

Judge Lyman swiftly denied Jones’s motion to compel, stating she had failed to show good cause for issuing the subpoena late and without court permission.

Crucially, the judge was unmoved by the deflection tactics, noting that if Wayfair had failed to produce documents, Jones should have filed a motion to compel against them, not attempted to obtain documents from a third party after the deadline.

Lack of Standing

Lively’s attempt to argue the motion was summarily shut down by Judge Lyman, who declared she was “not a party to this” and therefore lacked standing to intervene. Lively’s argument—that Casease’s documents, created for Jones, would prove Nathan (Lively’s former digital consultant) was lying in Lively’s separate lawsuit—was viewed as a highly strained effort to manufacture relevance. This maneuver confirmed to the court that the two parties are aggressively coordinating discovery to inflict maximum damage, regardless of legal standing.

II. Stephanie Jones: The Court’s Biggest Villain

While Blake Lively is fighting to prove she is the victim of a digital campaign, her ally, Stephanie Jones, is simultaneously being treated as the aggressor in her own legal battles against her former employee, Jennel. Judge Lyman’s rulings consistently reflect skepticism toward Jones’s legal position.

Allegations of Data Theft and Sham Litigation

The heart of the lawsuit filed by Jennel against Jones involves theft of private data and communications from Jennel’s personal phone. Jennel successfully resisted Jones’s motion to dismiss the claims, including:

Violation of California Penal Code § 502: This charge relates to accessing private data on a personal device without proper authorization—a serious violation of California’s strict privacy laws.

Conversion: Claiming wrongful possession of the phone and data.

Promissory Fraud: Alleging Jones obtained access to the phone under the false pretense of transferring phone numbers, when the true intent was to copy, access, and disseminate private data to create the CRD (Confidential Report Dossier).

The Vanzan Connection

Blake Lively’s company, Vanzan, which served as a shell for the original sham litigation that granted access to Jennel’s phone, is inextricably linked to the alleged victimization. The fact that the claims of data theft and privacy violation are still active and moving forward in court paints Jones—and by extension, her partner Vanzan/Lively—as the victimizer.

III. The Inevitable Fatal Conclusion

The decision by Lively and Reynolds to remain aligned with Jones is rapidly approaching a fatal juncture for their case, primarily due to the contrast in the alleged crimes committed.

Unequal Legal Culpability

In the eyes of the court, the legal acts Stephanie Jones is accused of—theft of data, unauthorized access to private communications, and potential penal code violations—are far more egregious than anything Lively has accused Wayfair of doing (which largely involves alleged defamation and a digital campaign).

By continuing to collude with Jones—filing tandem motions for sanctions and spoliation—Lively is effectively conspiring with the bigger villain. This destroys her narrative of being a principled victim fighting for accountability.

The Defense Indemnification Trap

The third-party complaint filed by Jennel against Jones in Lively’s lawsuit was a tactical masterstroke designed to divide the allies. If the court ultimately indemnifies Jennel, Stephanie Jones could be liable for Jennel’s defense costs—potentially millions of dollars in legal fees.

Despite this immense financial risk, Lively continues to work with Jones, demonstrating a priority that appears to be less about justice and more about “wearing out” Wayfair and forcing a concession. However, this strategy, which relies on abusing the court system, has caused Judge Lyman to view Jones with extreme skepticism, a skepticism now being transferred to her “bestie,” Blake Lively.

The most profound mistake made by Blake Lively was allowing the line between her personal pursuit of justice and the criminal behavior of her ally to become blurred. In the eyes of the court, aligning with the party who is facing charges of data theft only destroys her own credibility and her claims of being a victim of a digital campaign.