Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

[Anonymous]

If anyone wants to explore the actual documents, here are:

Blake's proposed PO:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.89.2.pdf

Blake's proposed PO, redlined against the court's model PO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.89.3.pdf

Blake proposed PO (not sure if same) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.90.0_1.pdf

Wayfarer Proposed PO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.97.0.pdf

Judge's PO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.74.0_1.pdf

I don't have the inclination, but if anyone wants to deep dive and see who won on the language, have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

No. I think we disagree. Look at the you tube video.

If either side presents evidence at AEO, it’s up to the other party to agree or disagree based on the 4 exceptions carved out by the judge. And this is because one party may want to designate evidence as protected, but the other party doesn’t feel the evidence falls within the definition of the judges order. In the video, they talk a lot about the fourth category and how one side might argue protected, while the other side may disagree and say absolutely relevant to the case.

If the parties do not agree on evidence in these four areas, they can send it to the judge to make a ruling on.

The purpose of this measure is to prevent overreach. So Lively cannot say that certain communications should be prove between her and TS when in fact they are related to the case and should not be AEO. BF would argue that if such evidence was being asked to be hidden from Justin.

Overall, Lively’s request for blanketed and usurping AEO designation for any and all evidence that her attorneys would prefer hidden isn’t going to happen. BF can object, if they don’t agree, the judge rules on that evidence.

And this goes both ways for both parties. If Justin feels evidence on his side should be AEO snd Livelys attorneys say no way, they take it to the judge to decide.

Anything else outside of these 4 categories is admissible to all parties of the case, including texts between Blake and Taylor about things related to the case and parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint.

I think you’re missing the import of the words ‘highly personal and intimate’


Texts between BL and Swift as example would likely not be considered highly personal and intimate unless Swift was talking about something highly intimate/personal. So their regular chatter? Anything to do with this case? All in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

The attorneys on this video appear to be ignoring the arguments that Lively's attorneys made during the hearing, and the 3 categories of docs that Lively argued should be allowed to be marked AEO that included security measures, medical info, and highly personal and intimate info re third parties.

What I'm saying is that what is granted in this order is mostly what Lively asked for during the hearing that I heard. Lively's attys did not ask for "unilateral" ability to mark just any doc as AEO during the hearing. Lively's attorneys limited their ask to trade secrets, security measures, medical info and highly personal info especially involving third parties. And Lively's attorneys always made the exception that party info that was personal but relevant would not be AEO. If you look at my notes from the hearing, Lively's attorneys carved out an exception for info that was actually relevant to this lawsuit. The attys in this video are really completely ignoring Lively's hearing arguments -- maybe they didn't listen or weren't aware of what those arguments are. Basically they have created a strawman of what Lively argued that does not comport with reality and then say that the judge didn't grant that.

Also, I think folks are misunderstanding the order, which I can read some of through this video. I am correct that each party can designate materials as AEO without needing to go back and negotiate them with other parties. The order says that if information revealed in communications is personal, then any third party may automatically designate such documents as AEO -- THE END. If you are a party and info in a document is personal, you have an additional burden of determining whether it's relevant to the complaint's allegations before you can designate it as AEO.

I do think that in large part this is giving Lively what they asked for during the hearing. Again, these youtube attorneys don't appear to be familiar with the 4 categories of AEO documents that Lively's attorneys discussed during the hearing, for whatever reason, because this actual PO matches up very closely to those categories. For whatever reason, they may be getting more clicks for positioning their video this way - okay I guess. But that does not comport with what I actually heard during the hearing, and you can compare that yourself to my notes and the order and PO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

The attorneys on this video appear to be ignoring the arguments that Lively's attorneys made during the hearing, and the 3 categories of docs that Lively argued should be allowed to be marked AEO that included security measures, medical info, and highly personal and intimate info re third parties.

What I'm saying is that what is granted in this order is mostly what Lively asked for during the hearing that I heard. Lively's attys did not ask for "unilateral" ability to mark just any doc as AEO during the hearing. Lively's attorneys limited their ask to trade secrets, security measures, medical info and highly personal info especially involving third parties. And Lively's attorneys always made the exception that party info that was personal but relevant would not be AEO. If you look at my notes from the hearing, Lively's attorneys carved out an exception for info that was actually relevant to this lawsuit. The attys in this video are really completely ignoring Lively's hearing arguments -- maybe they didn't listen or weren't aware of what those arguments are. Basically they have created a strawman of what Lively argued that does not comport with reality and then say that the judge didn't grant that.

Also, I think folks are misunderstanding the order, which I can read some of through this video. I am correct that each party can designate materials as AEO without needing to go back and negotiate them with other parties. The order says that if information revealed in communications is personal, then any third party may automatically designate such documents as AEO -- THE END. If you are a party and info in a document is personal, you have an additional burden of determining whether it's relevant to the complaint's allegations before you can designate it as AEO.

I do think that in large part this is giving Lively what they asked for during the hearing. Again, these youtube attorneys don't appear to be familiar with the 4 categories of AEO documents that Lively's attorneys discussed during the hearing, for whatever reason, because this actual PO matches up very closely to those categories. For whatever reason, they may be getting more clicks for positioning their video this way - okay I guess. But that does not comport with what I actually heard during the hearing, and you can compare that yourself to my notes and the order and PO.

Huh? Are you a laid off lawyer or something? Dood. Relax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

Again, I don’t think you are a lawyer. Taylor’s deposition or a request for documents to Taylor would not be covered by an Attorney’s eyes only designation because the scope of discovery is already required to be limited to what’s relevant to the complaints. Taylor is directly mentioned in Justin’s complaint and discovery relevant to those allegations won’t get an AEO designation.

The definition is more narrow than what Blake requested, and therefore, not a win. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

The attorneys on this video appear to be ignoring the arguments that Lively's attorneys made during the hearing, and the 3 categories of docs that Lively argued should be allowed to be marked AEO that included security measures, medical info, and highly personal and intimate info re third parties.

What I'm saying is that what is granted in this order is mostly what Lively asked for during the hearing that I heard. Lively's attys did not ask for "unilateral" ability to mark just any doc as AEO during the hearing. Lively's attorneys limited their ask to trade secrets, security measures, medical info and highly personal info especially involving third parties. And Lively's attorneys always made the exception that party info that was personal but relevant would not be AEO. If you look at my notes from the hearing, Lively's attorneys carved out an exception for info that was actually relevant to this lawsuit. The attys in this video are really completely ignoring Lively's hearing arguments -- maybe they didn't listen or weren't aware of what those arguments are. Basically they have created a strawman of what Lively argued that does not comport with reality and then say that the judge didn't grant that.

Also, I think folks are misunderstanding the order, which I can read some of through this video. I am correct that each party can designate materials as AEO without needing to go back and negotiate them with other parties. The order says that if information revealed in communications is personal, then any third party may automatically designate such documents as AEO -- THE END. If you are a party and info in a document is personal, you have an additional burden of determining whether it's relevant to the complaint's allegations before you can designate it as AEO.

I do think that in large part this is giving Lively what they asked for during the hearing. Again, these youtube attorneys don't appear to be familiar with the 4 categories of AEO documents that Lively's attorneys discussed during the hearing, for whatever reason, because this actual PO matches up very closely to those categories. For whatever reason, they may be getting more clicks for positioning their video this way - okay I guess. But that does not comport with what I actually
heard during the hearing, and you can compare that yourself to my notes and the order and PO.

Your notes from the hearing? Someone spends far too much time on this case, and still doesn’t get it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint.

I think you’re missing the import of the words ‘highly personal and intimate’


Texts between BL and Swift as example would likely not be considered highly personal and intimate unless Swift was talking about something highly intimate/personal. So their regular chatter? Anything to do with this case? All in

No. Anything Swift is asked for that involves private info, she can mark AEO, even if it involves the case. Which is a large part of the third party protection Lively was asking for.

When Lively has to produce her own part of those text exchanges, it’s not clear what will happen, but I think she may be able to redact out the third party part of the convo — which I believe is a very large part of what she was trying to accomplish in the first place. In this way (as I said from the beginning) Lively’s own part of the convo gets produced (if relevant) but the third party’s may get procured only as AEO, which helps protect the third parties she was concerned about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint.

I think you’re missing the import of the words ‘highly personal and intimate’


Texts between BL and Swift as example would likely not be considered highly personal and intimate unless Swift was talking about something highly intimate/personal. So their regular chatter? Anything to do with this case? All in

No. Anything Swift is asked for that involves private info, she can mark AEO, even if it involves the case. Which is a large part of the third party protection Lively was asking for.

When Lively has to produce her own part of those text exchanges, it’s not clear what will happen, but I think she may be able to redact out the third party part of the convo — which I believe is a very large part of what she was trying to accomplish in the first place. In this way (as I said from the beginning) Lively’s own part of the convo gets produced (if relevant) but the third party’s may get procured only as AEO, which helps protect the third parties she was concerned about.

Nope, you are wrong. This is not what Lively asked for. Go back and reread.

You are not a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Read #9

[Anonymous]

I am totally a lawyer lol. You don’t seem to understand what Lively asked for in the hearing. Anyone who thinks this is a win for Baldoni, go and look at his proposed PO and see how vastly different it is from the entered one. While Lively’s proposed PO is a little different, it matches up much more closely and the 4 categories of AEO match up almost exactly.

[Anonymous]

Match up almost exactly to what she requested at the hearing I mean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

———//////

This seems wrong to me and I don't see this in the PO anywhere. Documents can be produced with an AEO stamp by a party if they involve "highly personal and intimate info about third parties -- OR highliy personal and intimate information about PARTIES other than info directly relevant to the truth or falisy of allegations in the complaints in this case." To me, this means that any text from Swift to Lively might be AEO unless it directly comments on issues in the complaint. It wouldn't need to involve medical or security info, just info about Swift that is private and could be damaging. Lively doesn't need to go ask Freedman permission for this designation as PP above seems to suggest. Freedman can challenge it but he needs to do that affirmatively. That's definitely a win for Lively, and positioning this as a win for Baldoni is bananas.

I'm not exactly clear on what happens when a document involves BOTH information that is relevant to the case AND information that otherwise falls under the AEO requirements. For example, the example that Lively gave in in the hearing of Baldoni venting to a third party about Lively - it seems like Baldoni's venting might not be protected but the third party's response might be if it revealed protectable, non-relevant personal info about the third party -- which I thought was basically what Lively was attempting to protect in the first place. The way that Liman wrote the PO is getting at the issue Lively was raising in the hearing to start with -- info about third parties that wasn't really relevant to the case itself but was still private to those third parties.

People framing this as a win for Baldoni -- wow, I really did not expect that. You guys are really something, hats off to you.

No. I think we disagree. Look at the you tube video.

If either side presents evidence at AEO, it’s up to the other party to agree or disagree based on the 4 exceptions carved out by the judge. And this is because one party may want to designate evidence as protected, but the other party doesn’t feel the evidence falls within the definition of the judges order. In the video, they talk a lot about the fourth category and how one side might argue protected, while the other side may disagree and say absolutely relevant to the case.

If the parties do not agree on evidence in these four areas, they can send it to the judge to make a ruling on.

The purpose of this measure is to prevent overreach. So Lively cannot say that certain communications should be prove between her and TS when in fact they are related to the case and should not be AEO. BF would argue that if such evidence was being asked to be hidden from Justin.

Overall, Lively’s request for blanketed and usurping AEO designation for any and all evidence that her attorneys would prefer hidden isn’t going to happen. BF can object, if they don’t agree, the judge rules on that evidence.

And this goes both ways for both parties. If Justin feels evidence on his side should be AEO snd Livelys attorneys say no way, they take it to the judge to decide.

Anything else outside of these 4 categories is admissible to all parties of the case, including texts between Blake and Taylor about things related to the case and parties.

I’m PP you’re arguing with and in what universe did anyone ever think or claim that Lively would get to make AEO designations that would not get disputed by other parties? Why do you keep making up these straw men? Do you even understand normal discovery? This PO shifts the burden of disputing AEO designations on to Freedman (or the otherwise disputing party), which is a large part of what Freedman was arguing against in the hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am totally a lawyer lol. You don’t seem to understand what Lively asked for in the hearing. Anyone who thinks this is a win for Baldoni, go and look at his proposed PO and see how vastly different it is from the entered one. While Lively’s proposed PO is a little different, it matches up much more closely and the 4 categories of AEO match up almost exactly.

The people who won this motion are the pr firms. They got what they needed to protect their other clients.