Blake Lively JUST SUBPOENAED ME – SHE WON’T SILENCE MY REPORTING or WIN!
Subpoena Showdown: Blake Lively’s Legal Team Targets YouTubers, Including Katie Joy from “Without a Crystal Ball”
In the latest escalation of the already explosive Blake Lively vs. Wayfair Studios lawsuit, the battlefield has expanded far beyond Hollywood boardrooms and courtrooms. Content creators and independent journalists now find themselves in the crosshairs—especially YouTuber Katie Joy of the popular channel Without a Crystal Ball.
On July 10th, Katie, known for her investigative commentary on public figures and ongoing court cases, took to YouTube to share that she had been served with a Google subpoena issued by none other than Ezra Hudson, Blake Lively’s attorney. The subpoena—linked to the high-profile defamation and harassment suit between Lively and Wayfair—demands information about her Google account, seemingly part of a larger sweep targeting multiple content creators.
And Katie isn’t backing down.
“SubpoenaGate”: The Plot Thickens
According to Katie’s video, the subpoena from Blake Lively’s team didn’t come with specific claims or a clear explanation. Instead, it arrived via email from Google, stating that the tech giant had received a subpoena and would turn over information unless a motion to quash was filed by July 31st.
“I have no idea what they’re looking for,” Katie explained in the video. “There’s nothing in that Gmail account. It’s linked to YouTube and spam. That’s it. I don’t use it for communication.”
Despite this, the stakes are high. Google won’t resist the subpoena on her behalf, so it’s up to Katie’s legal team to fight back—or potentially risk exposure of personal account data.
“Fishing Expedition” or Legitimate Discovery?
Katie believes the subpoena is a fishing expedition, a punitive move designed to intimidate independent voices covering the lawsuit. She emphasized repeatedly that she has no relationship with the parties involved—no direct communication with Justin Baldoni, Steve Sarowitz, Jamie Heath, or any of the named individuals on either side of the lawsuit.
“I’ve never been paid. I’ve never even spoken to Brian Friedman or any of those guys,” Katie stated. “All my commentary comes from publicly available court documents and filings.”
Katie’s main assertion is this: She’s not a conspirator—she’s a commentator. And for Lively’s legal team to insinuate otherwise is both legally dubious and ethically troubling.
A Reporter Under Fire
Katie reminded her viewers—and likely Blake Lively’s legal team—that Without a Crystal Ball is an LLC, a registered media business in the state of Minnesota. Her work is journalistic in nature, and she argues that seeking access to her Google account is not only invasive but potentially violative of press freedoms.
“I’m not handing over sources. I’m not giving up anonymous tips. I’m a reporter. I cover cases based on evidence and filings. This is no different than my work on Ruby Franke, Josh Duggar, Scientology, or Sister Wives.”
As Katie describes, she began covering the Blake Lively case only after Wayfair filed its formal response, which included evidence contradicting Lively’s claims. Until then, she had supported Blake’s side, or at least withheld criticism.
The Evidence that Changed Her Mind
The birth scene, the infamous footage of Lively dancing on set, and the hundreds of emails and texts filed in court all altered Katie’s perception. In her words:
“I tried to give Blake the benefit of the doubt—even in the video where she looked uncomfortable. But when I read her complaint and then saw the footage myself… things just didn’t add up.”
She challenges Lively’s narrative that It Ends With Us was filmed under coercive or exploitative conditions. Instead, Katie highlights the film’s tame PG-13 tone and the absence of nudity or explicit content.
“I read the book. The book is smut. The movie? Not even close. There’s no nudity, no porn, nothing graphic at all. So where’s the harassment?”
The Chilling Effect on Media
If content creators like Katie Joy are being targeted with subpoenas for covering a public lawsuit filed by a public figure, what does that mean for independent journalism? This is the question echoing throughout YouTube, Reddit, and legal Twitter.
Critics argue that Blake Lively is weaponizing subpoenas to intimidate critics and reporters, especially those not backed by major media outlets. It’s not the first time this has happened in high-profile cases—but it might be one of the most egregious.
“This is the Streisand Effect in full force,” Katie said. “The more you try to silence people, the more interest you generate in what they’re saying.”
Subpoenas and Deadlines
Katie notes that the judge in the case set July 25th as the final day for subpoena-related production. So why was hers issued on July 10th with a production date of July 31st?
“It makes no sense,” she said. “Is it a setup? Is it meant to get Google or me in trouble for noncompliance?”
At the time of recording, her legal team was preparing to file a motion to quash, and she assured her audience that she would not be providing access to any of her accounts.
Final Thoughts from Katie
Katie ended her video with a strong but respectful message to Blake Lively:
“I haven’t smeared you. I don’t name-call. I refer to you as Blake or Miss Lively. I haven’t interfered in your businesses. I’ve never told anyone to boycott your brands. I’m not part of a conspiracy—I’m just covering a story. Because you filed it in court, and because I can.”
Her message to subscribers was equally clear: she will continue covering the story, and she won’t be intimidated.
“If something comes out that proves Blake’s side, I’ll report on that too. But right now, what’s in the filings doesn’t match what she’s saying. And that’s what I’m talking about.”
What Comes Next?
This may just be the beginning of SubpoenaGate, as more content creators report receiving similar notices. But the message is loud and clear: independent media is watching, and so are thousands of viewers.
As the legal drama between Blake Lively and Wayfair Studios barrels toward its next hearing, one thing is certain—this isn’t just a court case anymore. It’s a battle over media freedom, digital transparency, and the power of public narrative.
Stay tuned.