Blake Lively Claps Back! Being Very Shady! Is Misdirecting And Misrepresenting To The Judge! Claims:

The Vanzan CEO Strikes Again: A Scandalous Saga of Subpoenas, Secrets, and Sabotage

In the ever-twisting tale of celebrity lawsuits, shady shell companies, and courtroom theatrics, a new villain has emerged—or perhaps an antihero: the elusive CEO of Vanzan Inc. In what is quickly becoming the It Ends With Us legal universe, the latest chapter is a juicy collision of gossip, litigation, and what one might call “subpoena sabotage.”

And at the center of it all? The Vanzan CEO—an enigmatic figure now known for dodging subpoenas, delaying disclosures, and dropping legal responses that read more like press releases than serious legal arguments.

This is the story of how the Vanzan CEO struck again—and how Jennifer Abel, Justin Baldoni’s current publicist, is refusing to back down.

A Publicist War Goes Nuclear

To understand the chaos, we need to rewind. Jennifer Abel (Jen Ael) had a messy exit from her former boss Stephanie Jones—Justin Baldoni’s former publicist. Jones allegedly fired Abel upon discovering she planned to launch her own PR firm. Not only did Jones seize Abel’s personal phone and laptop (which may have contained sensitive health info), but on that same day, confidential information about Abel allegedly leaked to none other than The Plantation Princess’s rep, Leslie Sloan.

Suspicious? That’s putting it lightly.

This drama set off a chain reaction of legal filings, culminating in a stealthy lawsuit filed by a mysterious company—Vanzan Inc.—in New York, allegedly connected to Jones or her associates. The lawsuit never named Abel or Baldoni publicly, nor were they even informed. Yet Vanzan somehow gained access to Abel’s communications.

Now, months later, Abel is fighting back—filing a motion to compel Vanzan to cough up documents, explain its structure, and reveal its stakeholders.

The response? Vintage Vanzan: legal gaslighting at its finest.

The Metadata Mystery

Let’s talk metadata—because it’s the smoking gun in this story.

Vanzan’s allies claimed they had already “handed over” the relevant documents. But here’s the twist: those documents, turned over by Blake Lively’s team (yes, that Blake), were missing metadata. And not just trivial fields—crucial stuff like dates, authorship, and attachments. Without it, documents could’ve been created yesterday, fabricated entirely, or stripped of key context.

Even Vanzan’s own response, through its legal counsel, admitted the documents lacked attachments and metadata. Yet they still insisted that Abel already had everything she needed.

So why the cloak-and-dagger act? Why redact the truth if there’s nothing to hide?

Who Is the Vanzan CEO?

That’s the million-dollar question. The corporate veil over Vanzan is thicker than a Hollywood reboot’s CGI. Public records have been scant. Until now.

Under pressure, Vanzan’s lawyer finally offered to produce the company’s articles of incorporation and written consents revealing board members and shareholders. If these are public, why didn’t Vanzan turn them over months ago when first asked?

Speculation swirls: Is the Vanzan CEO a Lively relative? A legal fixer tied to Jones Works PR? Or is Vanzan nothing more than a ghost company—set up to funnel information and file lawsuits behind a smokescreen?

The secrecy only strengthens the theory that Vanzan was never intended to operate like a real business—but rather as a legal hitman, used to blindside Abel and her team.

A Tangled Web of Delay and Deflection

In its response to Abel’s motion, Vanzan accused her of launching a “negative media campaign” and claimed her legal requests were all about PR.

Hypocrisy much?

Let’s not forget Vanzan filed an anonymous lawsuit without serving the actual parties involved, then claimed the communications it mysteriously obtained were legally acquired. They now accuse Abel of “burdening” the court while they themselves stonewall document production and evade discovery duties.

The irony is rich—and Judge Lyman seems to agree. He recently limited objections in a related matter to just two pages, signaling his exhaustion with the endless cycles of repetition and vague accusations.

Subpoena Dodgeball: The Vanzan Playbook

Instead of directly complying, Vanzan’s reply offered a mix of resistance and vague promises:

They’ll provide some documents—but only the ones Abel allegedly already has.

They’ll reveal some corporate info—but not all of it.

They insist Jones Works should be the one producing key communications—even though Vanzan filed the original lawsuit that captured those communications.

Legal experts call this the “subpoena shuffle”: make it seem like you’re cooperating just enough to avoid sanctions while quietly withholding the most incriminating evidence.

The goal? Delay, confuse, and exhaust the opposing side—until their resources (or their patience) run dry.

The Real Stakes: Reputation and Retaliation

This isn’t just about legal technicalities. At its core, Abel’s motion is about reputation, privacy, and the abuse of legal systems for retaliatory purposes.

If Vanzan was indeed used as a proxy to go after Abel without fair notice—accessing her personal communications, leaking them to rivals, and obstructing discovery—then this saga crosses into dangerous territory: the weaponization of civil litigation.

Vanzan insists Abel’s employment dispute with Jones is irrelevant. But Abel argues that Vanzan’s actions were a direct extension of that feud—used to suppress her, punish her, and prevent her from telling her side.

The fact that Vanzan only now agrees to produce partial documents—after months of delay and missing metadata—only adds to the suspicion.

The Verdict (So Far): Shadow Games Continue

While the court has yet to rule definitively on Abel’s motion to compel, the writing is on the wall: Vanzan is running out of excuses. And the Vanzan CEO—whether real, fabricated, or hiding behind corporate filings—has become a central character in a legal drama bigger than any PR war.

Abel’s refusal to back down, despite limited access and alleged retaliation, is a reminder of the power imbalance that can exist in these battles. With big names like Blake Lively, Leslie Sloan, and even former Taylor Swift besties hovering in the wings, this case isn’t just legal—it’s cinematic.

And if Perez Hilton’s commentary is any indication, the public is hungry for more.

Stay tuned, because when the Vanzan CEO strikes again—you’d better believe it’ll make headlines.