Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman entered a protective order in the case which seems to mostly grant Lively's attorneys what they wanted -- allows the parties to declare documents attorneys eyes only ("AEO") if they involve trade secrets but also security measures, medical information, or highly personal and intimate information about third parties, or about parties but are otherwise not directly relevant to the allegations in the complaints. Parties don't need to go through the meet and confer procedures that Freedman wanted to declare something AEO, but Freedman (or others) can later challenge those designations.

So what was it that the Freeman Fans were saying about how he was winning everything and wasn't just all bluster and show? I'm the one who provided notes from the hearing and I thought his emotion and hurt feelings was not coming off well, and that Lively's atty made good arguments. Guess who was right? (I can't access the opinion that goes along with the order, so if anyone has a copy please provide a link!)

I’m not seeing why this is such a win for Blake. Trade secrets? Medical info? It’s pretty standard to keep that stuff confidential so it’s not really a loss.

And Baldonis side already posted that website so the tons of info is out there already.

Seems like a nothing burger to me.

lol okay Team Balboner definitely not eating words, and in fact is now saying this PO that Lively requested is actually "pretty standard." lolol

I’m not that earlier lawyer, but trade secrets and medical info being kept confidential is really not what anyone was getting at here. The last prong is the only one that could be considered a ‘win’ for Blake and if you read it, it’s highly qualified

[Anonymous]

^ and I’m not team anyone. Just a bystander mostly intrigued by the NYT involvement in this train wreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in?

I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho.

The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour.

Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client).

Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy.

Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category.

Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case.

Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16.

Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used.

Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well.

I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs.

Just reposting the prior notes from the 3/6 hearing where Baldoni Fans and supposed attys came back to say no, AEOs are only granted for trade secrets and nothing else and Lively's attorneys were definitely out of their depth here and Liman was clearly favoring Freedman. Someone also reposted the comments of a TikTok atty who said Lively's request would not be granted and she came off as very entitled for asking for such protection for herself (even though I noted that it appeared she was in a very large part asking for protection for third parties who did not ask to be involved in this crazy case). Seems like its time to eat your words, but I'm not holding my breath lol.

PP that wasn’t me from 3/6 but reading the order and I’ll say again, I don’t think this is a big win (or loss) for anyone. ‘Highly likely’ and then a carveout of that even if the info goes to truth. So not much, and even then a process to challenge the designation. Ok, so??

Baldoni’s side already did a big data dump. And in all that into that made Blake look bad, I don’t see anything that would have necessarily met these new qualifications and have been restricted.

It's basically exactly the PO that Lively requested, with the caveat that the judge noted during the hearing that the standard for harm to invoke AEO be "highly likely" and not "likely." Freedman clearly wanted Lively to have to come back to him and beg for every single AEO designation, which they now don't need to do. This is obviously a big win for Lively by giving them the freedom to mark docs AEO and then argue over challenges later. The fact that you aren't admitting that just shows how far down the rabbit hole you've dug yourself down.

[Anonymous]

And there is a difference between marking docs "confidential" and "AEO." Confidential docs can be shared with your clients. AEO cannot (unless your clients are attorneys). That is something Freedman complained about so I guess it was a big deal to him but not to you all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in?

I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho.

The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour.

Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client).

Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy.

Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category.

Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case.

Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16.

Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used.

Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well.

I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs.

Just reposting the prior notes from the 3/6 hearing where Baldoni Fans and supposed attys came back to say no, AEOs are only granted for trade secrets and nothing else and Lively's attorneys were definitely out of their depth here and Liman was clearly favoring Freedman. Someone also reposted the comments of a TikTok atty who said Lively's request would not be granted and she came off as very entitled for asking for such protection for herself (even though I noted that it appeared she was in a very large part asking for protection for third parties who did not ask to be involved in this crazy case). Seems like its time to eat your words, but I'm not holding my breath lol.

PP that wasn’t me from 3/6 but reading the order and I’ll say again, I don’t think this is a big win (or loss) for anyone. ‘Highly likely’ and then a carveout of that even if the info goes to truth. So not much, and even then a process to challenge the designation. Ok, so??

Baldoni’s side already did a big data dump. And in all that into that made Blake look bad, I don’t see anything that would have necessarily met these new qualifications and have been restricted.

It's basically exactly the PO that Lively requested, with the caveat that the judge noted during the hearing that the standard for harm to invoke AEO be "highly likely" and not "likely." Freedman clearly wanted Lively to have to come back to him and beg for every single AEO designation, which they now don't need to do. This is obviously a big win for Lively by giving them the freedom to mark docs AEO and then argue over challenges later. The fact that you aren't admitting that just shows how far down the rabbit hole you've dug yourself down.

Huh? What rabbit hole? I’m primarily interested in the inside baseball legal aspects of these cases- mostly the Times piece- and I couldn’t care much for either side. Although I think BL was an idiotic for making this big splash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And there is a difference between marking docs "confidential" and "AEO." Confidential docs can be shared with your clients. AEO cannot (unless your clients are attorneys). That is something Freedman complained about so I guess it was a big deal to him but not to you all.

Pp. I see your point but using the existing data dump as an example, what would have changed in the info they posted?

I can’t see anything really

[Anonymous]

I will just say this one more time and then bow out for a while. Back when Lively asked for this PO, it was seen by Baldoni side as being a crazy overreach and something that was highly unlikely to be granted. Lively's requested PO was discussed here as being another example of how incompetent Lively's attorneys were, and Freedman's opposition was another showy example of how he was besting her in smarts and attorney know how.

Now Judge Liman has issued the PO and it's basically everything that Lively asked for. So when were you wrong, now or then? Either this PO Lively requested is way outside the norm and therefore granting it is a big win for Lively, or this PO that Lively requested is actually no big deal and was never a big crazy ask for her attorneys to be making, and is totally standard and Freedman was out of line to make such a big fuss opposing it. Something is off here because Lively's attorneys cannot have been BOTH ridiculous to ask for this crazy AEO PO but ALSO now really have not won a single thing by having the judge grant it. The cognitive dissonance on this board continues to astound me.

*have other things to do so talk amongst yourselves and reconfirm how you're really right and I'm the one that can't actually see reality I guess, you guys are the worst -- and, scene*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will just say this one more time and then bow out for a while. Back when Lively asked for this PO, it was seen by Baldoni side as being a crazy overreach and something that was highly unlikely to be granted. Lively's requested PO was discussed here as being another example of how incompetent Lively's attorneys were, and Freedman's opposition was another showy example of how he was besting her in smarts and attorney know how.

Now Judge Liman has issued the PO and it's basically everything that Lively asked for. So when were you wrong, now or then? Either this PO Lively requested is way outside the norm and therefore granting it is a big win for Lively, or this PO that Lively requested is actually no big deal and was never a big crazy ask for her attorneys to be making, and is totally standard and Freedman was out of line to make such a big fuss opposing it. Something is off here because Lively's attorneys cannot have been BOTH ridiculous to ask for this crazy AEO PO but ALSO now really have not won a single thing by having the judge grant it. The cognitive dissonance on this board continues to astound me.

*have other things to do so talk amongst yourselves and reconfirm how you're really right and I'm the one that can't actually see reality I guess, you guys are the worst -- and, scene*

Huh? You sound insane. I’ve explained several times and you refuse to accept not everyone is just team baldoni and also that this ‘win’ maybe isn’t that big of a deal.

Again, how would it have changed anything already out there?

Are you just obsessed with people saying this was a win for Blake? Ok, sure it was sort of. But again, I don’t see any practical difference.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see why you think this was a huge win for Blake, the type of things her attorneys said they wanted to protect aren’t within the definition of what is AEO, except for medical information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why you think this was a huge win for Blake, the type of things her attorneys said they wanted to protect aren’t within the definition of what is AEO, except for medical information.

Worth adding that the pr firms legitimately may have some trade secret info they need to protect.

[Anonymous]

On Reddit things are seen differently and I agree. It’s a win for Justin.

AEO is granted, but for extraneous communications and things, ie not things directly related to the case (such as medical and security, etc). Anything else requested for protection has to be passed by other party. If they can’t agree, the court decides.

So if it’s something about Blake’s health, then AEO. If it’s communications with Taylor, then not protected unless it has to do with Blake’s health or security, etc. judge carved out the ARO to make it very limited to things not necessarily related to the case and communications.

Here is what someone wrote, which I agree with (still more of a win for Justin who wants the communications seen, which he will get)


————————-
This is good because The Lively team only wanted a blanket AEO to protect her communication with third parties, she doesn't care about medical or security.

She wanted all her communication with third parties to be AEO even the ones related to the case and this will only be AEO for intimate communication. We don't care about what she texts her mom or sister.

Baldoni's team wants to see her text to Taylor where she's asking Taylor to intimidate Justin. This is a win for Baldoni

———//////

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why you think this was a huge win for Blake, the type of things her attorneys said they wanted to protect aren’t within the definition of what is AEO, except for medical information.

For example, if Taylor Swift was deposed concerning her comments to Baldoni about Blake’s screenwriting or asked for emails concerning the same, it would not be entitled to AEO protection. If Blake sent an email to a friend venting about what had occurred on set (the example her attorney gave at the hearing), it would not be entitled to AEO protection under this protective order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in?

I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho.

The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour.

Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client).

Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy.

Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category.

Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case.

Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16.

Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used.

Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well.

I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs.

Just reposting the prior notes from the 3/6 hearing where Baldoni Fans and supposed attys came back to say no, AEOs are only granted for trade secrets and nothing else and Lively's attorneys were definitely out of their depth here and Liman was clearly favoring Freedman. Someone also reposted the comments of a TikTok atty who said Lively's request would not be granted and she came off as very entitled for asking for such protection for herself (even though I noted that it appeared she was in a very large part asking for protection for third parties who did not ask to be involved in this crazy case). Seems like its time to eat your words, but I'm not holding my breath lol.

I don’t think you understand the order.

[Anonymous]

Pp here with the Reddit comment. Here is a pretty good analysis of the order. Again, I agree. More of a win for Justin overall:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L710wrYdk44M

[Anonymous]

I don't think the PO is a big deal in the long run. The decisions is more comprehensive than the model order, less than what Lively's team asked for. So, in the middle, not a win or a loss for either side. Split the baby.

I think the main reason Lively's team requested the more stringent PO was to reassure third parties who are worried about their privacy. They can now go back to those parties (which includes potential witnesses who could be critical to their case) and say they fought for and got extra protection. That will help them with that group. I don't think Lively's side is as concerned about how this order plays with the public.

Meanwhile, JB's side gets a little PR win here and can say Lively wanted to keep discovery private (it's more nuanced than this but true enough) while JB is working to keep everything in the open. JB's main audience right now is the general public, so this will help them.

In terms of the legal cases, I think this is irrelevant.