Pro-Baldoni YouTuber targeted by Blake Lively in ‘invasive’ subpoena reveals ironic financial link to Ryan Reynolds

A smalltime YouTuber has hit back in a court filing after Blake Lively subpoenaed her bank details – accusing the Gossip Girl star of pursuing ‘desperate and paranoid’ tactics, and submitting an official complaint against the actress’s lawyer.

Lively, 37, has claimed throughout her ongoing legal battle that her ex co-star Justin Baldoni paid influencers to smear her following the premiere of 2024 domestic violence drama film It Ends With Us. 

But in an ironic twist, pro-Baldoni YouTuber Kassidy O’Connell says the only money she has received is from ads on her videos starring Lively’s husband Ryan Reynolds.

‘Ms. Lively, who still cannot accept that the criticism against her online is completely organic and of her own making, has made yet another move guaranteed to make matters far worse for her reputation by lashing out at content creators on social media,’ O’Connell wrote in the filing published on the docket Friday.

It Ends With Us actress Lively sparked uproar on social media when she sent a legal demand to Google for the financial and personal records of 16 YouTubers earlier this month, and to social media site X for another 20 users.

Some of the content creators told DailyMail.com they believe Lively is trying to prove a conspiracy that her legal nemesis Baldoni paid them to produce negative content about her, which they deny.

Blake Lively sparked an uproar last week after attempting to subpoena pro-Justin Baldoni YouTubers, demanding their bank details, addresses and phone numbers

YouTuber Kassidy O’Connell has blasted Blake Lively’s ‘invasive subpoena’ and filed a California State Bar complaint against Lively attorney Esra Hudson. She addressed the drama in a YouTube video shared Sunday (pictured)

One creator, who uses the pseudonym Kassidy O’Connell, has filed a fiery response asking the judge to cancel her subpoena, and accusing Lively of a ‘desperate and paranoid’ attempt to prove ‘an imaginary smear campaign’. 

O’Connell, who has around 16,000 subscribers to her YouTube channel, submitted her initial response last Wednesday without a lawyer, saying she was trying to meet tight court deadlines before she had a chance to hire an attorney.

She was scathing of Lively in her 11-page motion to quash the Google subpoena, which she filed alongside a copy of her California State Bar complaint against Lively attorney Esra Hudson.

‘No third party has access to add additional money to a YouTuber’s monthly pay,’ she wrote, trashing the theory that creators were paid by Baldoni.

‘We are paid by AdSense according to ads run on our channel. Ironically enough, Mint Mobile often runs ads on my channel featuring their spokesperson, Ryan Reynolds, so if I’ve been paid directly or indirectly by anyone involved in this case, it’s former party, Ryan Reynolds.’

Reynolds stars in Mint Mobile commercials, and owned a reported $300million stake in the company until 2023.

The subpoena to Google asks for O’Connell’s address, bank details, subscriber records, and detailed information on her YouTube account.

O’Connell argued in her filing that it was an unwarranted invasion of privacy, pointing to Lively’s own previous legal filings that asserted the actress’ right to privacy when Baldoni tried to subpoena her data.

‘Ms. Lively herself makes a compelling argument that individuals have a constitutional right to privacy regarding their financial information,’ O’Connell wrote.

‘Ms. Lively appears to recognize the basic elements of privacy rights that individuals are entitled to, despite her attempts to pierce the rights others are equally entitled to.’

The YouTuber, who makes videos dissecting court documents in celebrity cases and prominent criminal prosecutions, said she had already been the victim of a stalker and sexual assault, and that she was terrified Lively would leak her private information putting her in harm’s way.

‘Plaintiffs’ counsel has an established history in this case of improper (completely absent) redaction in filings and have exposed the home addresses of every Wayfarer defendant,’ O’Connell wrote.

The July 18 filing tears into Lively, as well as her attorney Esra Hudson, in a complaint (right) for ‘issuing an improper subpoena’.

The notices were sent out to the YouTubers via their Google accounts and demanded 16 content creators to produce their private information – which initially led many to believe that it was a phishing scam

‘This led to death threats to all the defendants, several of which are women, threats of kidnap and harm to a wife and daughter not affiliated with the lawsuit, an act of arson where the arsonist is currently in jail, and the disclosure of two separate medical conditions, further heightening the risk of exposure and harm to any person’s information presented to this lawsuit.

‘She proclaims herself to be the ‘voice of women’ and vowed to not stop speaking for us, while simultaneously causing lasting harm to woman after woman with her counsel and the Court’s assistance.

‘I, as most of her victims, have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to be unconstitutionally stripped of my rights to suit her whims.’

O’Connell called Lively’s subpoenas ‘abusive’ and ‘sweeping’, noting she served ’60 third party subpoenas and intends to file several more’ according to court documents.

The plucky YouTuber also claimed that Lively’s big law firm, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, made a procedural mistake that invalidates their subpoena.

O’Connell said clerks in Northern California federal court told her the subpoena to Google’s Bay Area, California headquarters was issued from New York, not NorCal. But she cited legal precedents saying that the subpoena must be routed through the nearest court to be valid.

In her filing, O’Connell objected to the subpoena, arguing that she is not a plaintiff or defendant in the case 

Ironically, the YouTuber notes that the only money she has received is from advertisements on her videos, such as those for Mint Mobile, starring Lively’s husband Ryan Reynolds

She also noted that Lively’s subpoena referred to Reynolds as a ‘party’ to the case, though he has already been dismissed from involvement by the judge.

O’Connell noted the alleged mistakes in a complaint against Manatt attorney Esra Hudson to the California State Bar for ‘issuing an improper subpoena’.

‘Her actions violated multiple California Rules of Professional Conduct and disregarded constitutional protections under the First Amendment,’ the YouTuber wrote in her complaint.

She included a claim that ‘Ms. Hudson’s office denied issuing the subpoena on three separate occasions […] which raises serious concerns under the rules of professional honesty and truthfulness.

‘The misuse of a legal process to delay litigation, intimidate critics, and obtain improper discovery from non-parties is serious misconduct that undermines both legal ethics and constitutional protections.’

New York federal Judge Lewis Liman responded to her initial submission by issuing an order on Wednesday afternoon saying O’Connell must either refile under her real name, or submit additional legal arguments explaining why she should remain anonymous.

‘The Court will not entertain the motion to quash unless it is either de-anonymized or accompanied by a motion requesting leave to proceed anonymously in this Court and explaining why the movant’s interest in anonymity outweighs the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the opposing party,’ Liman’s order said.

O’Connell refiled her documents on Friday, this time signed by an individual named ‘Ni Cai’, with the title of ‘Manager of Kassidy O’Connell, LLC’.

Lively’s theory that Baldoni hired influencers to smear her was bolstered by messages her lawyers obtained about Jed Wallace, a social media consultant used by Baldoni’s publicists.

Baldoni PR Melissa Nathan texted colleagues that Wallace quoted $175,000 for a three-month online campaign to ‘start threads of theories’ and provide ‘full social account take downs’, and a $25,000-per-month service of ‘creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change the narrative and stay on track’.

‘All of this will be most importantly untraceable,’ Nathan added in the August 6 2024 text.

But last Wednesday, Judge Liman dismissed Wallace from the case, in a blow to Lively’s claims over the alleged smear campaign.

Lively and former co-star Justin Baldoni have been locked in a tense legal battle over incidents which occurred during the creation of their film It Ends With Us, which is based on the 2016 bestseller by Colleen Hoover

In a summary of Wallace’s arguments, the judge wrote that the online consultant found ‘people on social media organically supported Baldoni and disliked Lively.’

‘Wallace has an understanding of what a ‘social combat’ or ‘social manipulation plan’ could be, but he did not provide such a service related to It Ends With Us, Wayfarer, Baldoni, Lively, or Reynolds,’ Liman wrote.

‘Wallace states that his role was merely passive observation and analysis of the social media environment.’

Liman ruled that Wallace had to be dismissed from the New York lawsuit because the court didn’t have jurisdiction over him, adding that Lively was free to separately sue the consultant in his home state of Texas.

Lively’s lawyers also appear to have sent out a subpoena to social media site X for another 20 content creators.

One account, ‘The Spiritual Shift’, wrote on July 17 that they received an email from X that it had received ‘legal process, dated July 3, 2025, requesting information regarding your X account’.

The X user, who says they are a licensed attorney, attached an apparent screenshot of the email.

‘I’m a licensed attorney and casual content creator who started covering this case in late December 2024 to early January 2025 because it mattered and interested me,’ The Spiritual Shift wrote in the July 17 post. 

‘I’m not monetized. No ads. No sponsors. No donations. Just over 2,400 followers. Zero dollars made.

‘The subpoena informs me that they are attempting to obtain my personal X account information simply because I dared to speak truth to power, openly, critically, and transparently, about them and their lawsuit.

’20 users were named in my copy of the subpoena,’ the X user added.

‘This is the height of privileged injustice. It is a fishing expedition, a deliberate attempt by the wealthy and powerful to scare, suppress, and silence dissent. It is intimidation disguised as litigation.’

A Lively spokesperson did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment.