[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]

Ms. Blake Lively moved for an order confirming that her requests for admission (“RFA’s”) were deemed admitted due to the Wayfarer Parties’ alleged failure to timely respond to them.  Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 2025 WL 3442593 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2025).  While the court held that the Wayfarer Parties’ responses were insufficient, it exercised its discretion to give them additional time to respond properly.

Generally, RFA’s are self-operating.  Unlike, for example, interrogatories, absent a timely response, RFA’s are deemed to be admitted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3)(“A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.”).

Ms. Lively served a request that the Wayfarer Parties admit the authenticity of 557 documents. Twenty-one days later, Lively corrected typographical errors in ten of the RFAs.

Three days before the 30-day deadline, Ms. Lively agreed to extend the time for a response. The agreement was memorialized by an email from Ms. Lively’s attorney to several attorneys for the defendants. The email stated:

Following up on our conferral, Ms. Lively is amenable to extending the deadline for responding to the RFAs from 11/10 to 11/13, as requested. This extension is premised on the understanding that by November 13 the Wayfarer Defendants will identify with specificity (i.e., by Bates, RFA number, or similar) which documents they will and will not stipulate to the authenticity of, and that such response accounts for the clerical corrections conveyed by email on October 31, 2025. We can make ourselves available thereafter to continue discussions regarding the scope of stipulation discussed on our call.

However, on November 13^th, the Wayfarer Parties answered each request with an objection to the form of the RFA’s and also stated that they could neither admit nor deny them. They wrote:

Responding Parties object that this Request is defective in form in that it does not seek an admission by an individual party based on that party’s personal knowledge. Instead, the Request is directed to eight parties collectively, seeking a collective admission without regard to the individual knowledge of a particular party. Accordingly, the Request cannot be answered in its current form with a simple admit or deny without explanation.

The Wayfarer Parties also stated that they would circulate a list of documents that they would authenticate by stipulation “early next week.”

The Lively court did not accept that response, writing:

The Wayfarer Parties’ objections to the RFAs are without merit. The Wayfarer Parties object to the number of documents Lively asks to be authenticated. However, the volume of documents is reasonable given the number of parties and claims.

The court also rejected an apparent effort to limit the response to the personal knowledge of the responders, writing that the Rule mandates a “reasonable inquiry.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4) states that: “The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.”

Despite what was essentially a failure to fully respond, the Lively court wrote that it has discretion “to permit what would otherwise be an untimely answer even after the time fixed by the rule has expired.”  It may do so when it would “aid in the presentation of the merits of the action and will not prejudice the party who made the request.” [citation omitted].

The Lively court exercised that discretion here, holding that:

A short extension would aid in the presentation of the merits of the case and would not prejudice Lively. Accordingly, by December 5, 2025, the Wayfarer Parties shall answer the RFAs (as corrected on October 31, 2025), indicating for each Wayfarer Party whether the party admits or denies the authenticity of the identified document or lacks sufficient knowledge or information after performing a “reasonable inquiry.”

For more information on this case, please visit:

• How Much Attention Does a Big Case Deserve? – E-Discovery LLC
• Another Discovery Decision in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Parties/Justin Baldoni – E-Discovery LLC
• “Birth Video” Discovery Dispute in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Baldoni – E-Discovery LLC
• Privilege Log Decision in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Justin Baldoni, et al. – E-Discovery LLC
• Discovery of Search Terms & Ephemeral Signal Messages – It Has Not Yet Ended “With Us” – E-Discovery LLC
• “It Ends With Us” – E-Discovery LLC
• Crime-Fraud Exception to Privilege Not Shown – E-Discovery LLC
• Initial Disclosures Cannot Await Expert Opinions – E-Discovery LLC
• Court Grants Motion to Strike Deposition Transcript Using Its “Inherent Power” – E-Discovery LLC
• “Discovery on Discovery” Denied in “It Ends With Us” Lawsuit – E-Discovery LLC
• Listing a Document on a Privilege Log Concedes That it is Relevant for Discovery – E-Discovery LLC
• My Father is a Lawyer – Are My Emails With Him Privileged? – E-Discovery LLC

The following is the Lively court’s list of counsel in this case:

Esra A. Hudson, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, CA, Aaron E. Nathan, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, Kristin Bender, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, Laura Lee Prather, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Austin, TX, Matthew F. Bruno, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, New York, NY, Meryl Conant Governski, Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, Washington, DC, Michael Lambert, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Austin, TX, Michaela Anne Connolly, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, New York, NY, Sarah Moses, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Stephanie Anne Roeser, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, San Francisco, CA, Michael Gottlieb, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, New York, NY, Alice Buttrick, Shapiro Arato LLP, New York, NY, Amir Kaltgrad, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Amit Shertzer, Sichenzia Ross Ference Carmel LLP, New York, NY, Bryan J. Freedman, Freedman, Taitelman & Cooley, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David Abraham Gold, Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, New York, NY, Ellyn S. Garofalo, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jason Anthony Driscoll, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, New York, NY, Jason Sunshine, Liner Freedman Taitelman & Cooley LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Joaquin Javier Ezcurra, Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, New York, NY, Jonathan Bach, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, New York, NY, Kevin A. Fritz, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York, NY, Kim Stacy Zeldin, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Mitchell Schuster, Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, New York, NY, Mitra Ahouraian, Los Angeles, CA, Stacey Michelle Ashby, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York, NY, Summer Benson, Liner Freedman Taitelman & Cooley, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Theresa M. Troupson, Liner Freedman Taitelman & Cooley LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Sarowit, Ends With Us Movie LLC, Melissa Nathan, The Agency Group PR LLC, and, Jennifer Abel.

Charles L. Babcock, IV, Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX, Joel Glover, Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX, Victoria C. Emery, Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant Jed Wallace. and Street Relations, Inc.

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM GAI and LLM Policy.