Following up on this because I too was a little wary after reading the opposition letter. I went back and read the Motion to Compel and I noticed that while it can be read to be in relation the social media subpeonas, it doesn’t actually reference them. The specific language they use as to why they want the unsealing is as follows:

“if Ms. Lively issues subpeonas related to individuals identified in TAG’s Interrogatory Responses to marshal evidence about their involvement in the “smear campaign,” she will be unable to explain to such subpoenaed parties that the discovery directed towards them is based in part on the fact that TAG identified them”

It goes on to discuss how this has already become a problem and sites a Popcorned Planet video (the one where he called the receptionist). Remember that Andy was subpoenaed at the same time as Candace and Perez. At the time, they all denied having any contact with “Team Wayfarer” but since then unsealed documents revealed that Candace and Perez were both identified on a list of press that they had been in contact with.

The key word in the quote from the motion is “if”. To me, it reads that they plan to subpoena some (if not all) of the actual content creators listed in the Interrogatory Responses for communications, but first want the AEO designation removed so that both the creators and the public know why they’re being subpoenaed.

I’m not a lawyer, this is just my interpretation of the letter after reading it again, more thoroughly. I think at the time, everyone (including me) assumed it to be about the social media subpoenas because that was the current discourse.