Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC
1:24-cv-10049
| S.D.N.Y. | Jul 16, 2025Background
- Brett Douglas McDowell, proceeding pro se, sought reconsideration of a prior court order denying his motion to intervene in a case involving Blake Lively as plaintiff and various parties associated with the film "It Ends With Us."
- McDowell argued that newly discovered evidence and disclosures by Wayfarer Studios implied his service dog was the inspiration for the characters "Dogpool" and "Nicepool."
- The court's original denial of intervention assumed for the motion's sake that McDowell's likeness was used but found the issue irrelevant because those characters were not central to the suit.
- McDowell's motion for reconsideration was based on recent filings and additional notices intended to show relevance and error in the court's prior decision.
- The court evaluated whether the new evidence or law affected the prior decision, especially given that claims regarding the Nicepool character were dismissed and Dogpool was never a core issue in the case.
Issues
| Issue | McDowell's Argument | Wayfarer Parties' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration Standard | New evidence/disclosures justify intervention | No change in law/evidence affecting prior ruling | Motion for reconsideration denied |
| Relevance of Dogpool/Nicepool | Dogpool/Nicepool based on movant, making their provenance relevant | Decision did not depend on origins of Dogpool/Nicepool; these issues irrelevant to live claims | Characters not relevant to current litigation |
| Significance of Recent Disclosures | Wayfarer disclosures filed reflect relevance of characters | Disclosures reflect preliminary views before dismissal of Nicepool claims | Disclosures do not alter original ruling |
| Impact of Mention in Discovery | Subpoenas may produce evidence mentioning movant | Mere mention does not establish right to intervene | Does not provide grounds for intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (sets out standard for reconsideration motions)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (reconsideration not a vehicle for relitigating issues or raising new arguments)
- Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1998) (discusses strict standard for granting reconsideration)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration permitted only where court overlooked controlling decisions/data)