A Texas-based crisis communications specialist is pushing to put Blake Lively under oath before paying her legal fees, arguing the actress should have to answer for allegations that made headlines worldwide but were never tested in court.
Jed Wallace, the PR specialist who runs crisis management firm Street Relations, filed a new complaint in Texas federal court asking a judge to compel Lively's deposition. Wallace wants to question the 38-year-old actress about her "state of mind" when she accused him of helping orchestrate a social media campaign against her, accusations Wallace says were false and that cost him his reputation and his business.
Lively's legal team fired back immediately, calling the deposition bid "yet another desperate, meritless attempt by Wallace to go after Ms. Lively out of fear that he may face the same kind of fee award that Ms. Lively won from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios in New York." Her attorneys told The Daily Mail that Wallace had already deposed Lively once, that his case was dismissed, and that Lively won.
The dispute traces back to December 2024, when Lively filed an administrative civil rights complaint in California tied to the troubled production and promotion of the film It Ends With Us. A precursor document attached to that complaint named Wallace and Street Relations, describing Wallace as a Texas-based contractor "who weaponized a digital army" to help "create, seed, and promote" social media content attacking her and defending her co-star, Justin Baldoni.
Eleven days after Lively's California filing, she filed a formal federal complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on or about December 31, 2024. Wallace and Street Relations were not named as defendants in that suit. But according to Wallace's court filing, the damage was already done. The precursor document had been distributed to media outlets, and Wallace and Street Relations "were widely reported to be defendants in the Formal Lawsuit although they were not, the confusion having been sown by the Precursor."
Wallace's filing cited Elle Magazine as one outlet that linked to the precursor document, reporting that it had made "headlines around the world." AP News reported that Wallace was referenced in court papers and a New York Times story but was not a named defendant in Lively's federal lawsuit against Baldoni.
Wallace responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against Lively in Texas federal court, seeking damages exceeding $1 million for emotional harm and loss of business. His lawsuit stated that neither he nor his company "had anything to do with the alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to investigate or aiding and abetting the alleged harassment or alleged retaliation."
A judge later dismissed that suit on personal jurisdiction grounds, meaning the court found it lacked authority over Lively in Texas, not that it ruled on the merits of Wallace's claims.
After the dismissal, Lively moved to recover approximately $800,000 in legal fees from Wallace. That fee recovery effort is what triggered the current fight. Wallace's position is straightforward: before he writes a check, he wants Lively to sit for a deposition and explain what she actually knew when she made the allegations against him.
His court filing laid out the argument in pointed terms:
"The central question is Lively's state of mind, whether she (i) knew her allegations were false; (ii) had a good-faith belief in the truth of her statements about Respondents specifically, or (iii) acted with reckless disregard of the truth or (iv) with ill will."
Wallace's filing went further, arguing that Lively is "the best person to testify about her subjective knowledge and intent regarding the Wallace Parties at the time she made the challenged statements." Because malice is "an inherently subjective inquiry," the filing stated, "other evidence such as documents or third-party testimony is subordinate to Lively's own testimony about what she knew and believed when she falsely accused the Wallace Parties of sexual harassment."
That phrase, "falsely accused", is Wallace's characterization, not a court finding. No court has ruled on whether Lively's allegations against Wallace were true or false.
Wallace's team says Lively was scheduled to appear for a deposition on August 4. She did not show. Her attorneys told Wallace's legal team that the deposition notice had "no legal basis" and was "null and void." Wallace then went to court to compel her appearance.
Lively's lawyers framed the entire effort as a shakedown attempt. Their statement to The Daily Mail was blunt:
"Jed Wallace already took Ms. Lively's deposition. His case was dismissed. Ms. Lively won."
Her attorneys characterized the new filing as driven by Wallace's fear that he could face the same kind of fee award Lively won against Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios in New York. The specific amount and timing of that separate fee award were not detailed.
The Wallace dispute is one thread in a sprawling web of litigation surrounding the film. AP News reported that Wallace and Street Relations had initially filed a $7 million defamation lawsuit against Lively, a figure significantly higher than the "exceeding $1,000,000" described in the court documents obtained by The Daily Mail. Lively's legal team called that original suit "transparent retaliation in response to allegations contained within a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint that Ms. Lively filed with the California Civil Rights Department."
Separately, Fox News reported that Baldoni's legal team has been preparing to use on-set video footage of Lively during her deposition in the broader case, and that a judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million countersuit against Lively in June. Wallace was described as having been dismissed from that case "without prejudice", meaning the claims could theoretically be refiled.
The court has not yet ruled on Wallace's latest filing to compel Lively's deposition in the fee dispute. Several key questions remain unanswered: whether the earlier deposition Lively's lawyers referenced took place in the now-dismissed defamation case or in separate proceedings, and what specific legal mechanism Wallace used to seek the new deposition.
What is clear is the pattern. Lively's precursor document named Wallace publicly, generated worldwide media coverage, and tagged him as part of an alleged smear operation. Eleven days later, the formal federal complaint dropped his name entirely. Wallace sued for defamation. The court threw it out on jurisdictional grounds without ever reaching the substance. Now Lively wants Wallace to pay $800,000 for the privilege of having been accused, and Wallace wants her to explain, under oath, what she actually knew before she made those accusations.
If you're going to put someone's name in a document that makes headlines around the world, it seems reasonable that you should be willing to answer questions about it under oath, especially when you're the one asking him to pay your legal bills.
