Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Blake and Ryan divorce is 3, 2, 1...

This lying ass mean girl got him into this crap and is dragging his career down the drain with her.

[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.

This is not a correct interpretation based on the plain language of the order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not a correct interpretation based on the plain language of the order.

I have seen texts from this litigation (and other litigation) where only one party’s side of the text is shown. I haven’t really been involved in production of texts before so I’m not sure what happens when Lively produces texts between her and Swift. But what I said about Swift’s texts is absolutely what Court’s order explaining the PO says. If Swift or some other third party is producing it, it doesn’t matter whether it’s relevant to the issues in the case - if it’s private and damaging to them to release they get to mark it AEO.

I had thought that the Baldoni folks in this thread were too far gone but that the folks who said they were neutral actually were neutral, but the way you are reading this PO when it is in absolute direct opposition to everything Freedman argued during the hearing regarding normal POs being limited only to trade secrets and the great burden that shifting the onus to Freedman to dispute the AEO designation would cause him is making me think you are gone.

[Anonymous]

Everyone on this thread should know by now that you are fighting a losing battle with her.

Team Baldoni

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm the PP who posted these links (and not the PP who posted about taking notes from the hearing, FTR).

I have now had time to look over a few of the docs and I'd estimate Lively got at least 90% of what she wanted. I'd recommend people read the redlined version from Lively's team and the Judge's order. I eyeballed Freedman's protective order, and it seems to be virtually the same as the model, so you can basically consider Lively's redlined version as a comparison between the Lively and Freedman versions.

It's got to be considered a win for Lively; even to the extent she did not get as much as what she requested, she still got well over and above what would normally be granted in the model.

Now in the end, will it matter? It will come down to nitpicking on "highly likely" and "significant," and the burden will fall on the party who is saying the material should be released, so more likely Freedman. They still may end up having to run to the judge on a lot of these, but if Lively's team keeps their designations reasonable (IMO, their subpoenas unreasonably broad, so we'll see!) they stand a good chance of getting the designations because it's Freedman who needs to pick and choose when to go to court to insist that information shouldn't be private.

The major differences I see between Lively's requested order and the judge's order:
Judge limits AEO to information "highly" likely to cause "significant" damage instead of "likely to cause damage."
Judge does not accept adding "high profile individuals" where "third parties" are mentioned (gee, who could that be referring to?).
Where Lively wanted to strike a paragraph stating that any party who wants protections over and above what the model order prescribes serve notice to the opposing party, the judge shifts the burden to the opposing party to oppose a designation of confidential/AEO (while not as strong as Lively requested, much stronger than the model order)
Lively wanted to add "public relations, media" to paragraph stating purposes for which the information can't be used - the judge only accepts that it can't be given to the media.
Judge does not accept a clause that says to avoid any doubt, any confidential material may not be leaked to Reddit, TikTok, Youtube, or other social media (this is obviously still the case, but the judge probably didn't see the need to spell it out so specifically).


Things the judge accepted:
Adding AEO distinction (that's huge)
All of the additional categories she added to the confidential information list (items suck as trading/credit/banking information, added information about public as well as non-public companies, added creative ideas/films/scripts/etc to trade secrets, incorporated photos/video/audio/medical/mental health/security/hotel codes names, etc to "personal or intimate information".)
Added that this distinction also applies to extracts or summaries of such information (another big one - they can't get around this by telling what's in the documents).
Added party phone numbers and addresses to the list of PII.

FWIW, the notactuallygolden TikTok which is generally fair to Baldoni (some have called it pro-Baldoni, I consider it fairly neutral), thinks it's a win for Blake.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7481379940752018730 (4 minute video)
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7481407914968714538 (1 minute)

She does it could hurt Lively in a certain way by opening up discovery more (they won't be able to refuse to produce things or have witnesses deposed because there's a strong mechanism to keep it confidential via AEO).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not a correct interpretation based on the plain language of the order.

I have seen texts from this litigation (and other litigation) where only one party’s side of the text is shown. I haven’t really been involved in production of texts before so I’m not sure what happens when Lively produces texts between her and Swift. But what I said about Swift’s texts is absolutely what Court’s order explaining the PO says. If Swift or some other third party is producing it, it doesn’t matter whether it’s relevant to the issues in the case - if it’s private and damaging to them to release they get to mark it AEO.

I had thought that the Baldoni folks in this thread were too far gone but that the folks who said they were neutral actually were neutral, but the way you are reading this PO when it is in absolute direct opposition to everything Freedman argued during the hearing regarding normal POs being limited only to trade secrets and the great burden that shifting the onus to Freedman to dispute the AEO designation would cause him is making me think you are gone.

Again, That isn’t how the order reads on its face. And if they were to mark it as such, it would be quickly contested and overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on this thread should know by now that you are fighting a losing battle with her.

Team Baldoni

Bots do nothing but "flood the zone" while the crisis operatives and lawyers milk the insecure and stupid millionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not a correct interpretation based on the plain language of the order.

I have seen texts from this litigation (and other litigation) where only one party’s side of the text is shown. I haven’t really been involved in production of texts before so I’m not sure what happens when Lively produces texts between her and Swift. But what I said about Swift’s texts is absolutely what Court’s order explaining the PO says. If Swift or some other third party is producing it, it doesn’t matter whether it’s relevant to the issues in the case - if it’s private and damaging to them to release they get to mark it AEO.

I had thought that the Baldoni folks in this thread were too far gone but that the folks who said they were neutral actually were neutral, but the way you are reading this PO when it is in absolute direct opposition to everything Freedman argued during the hearing regarding normal POs being limited only to trade secrets and the great burden that shifting the onus to Freedman to dispute the AEO designation would cause him is making me think you are gone.

Again, That isn’t how the order reads on its face. And if they were to mark it as such, it would be quickly contested and overturned.

Have you looked at the judges order explaining the PO, and not just the PO itself? That’s where the language re third party productions I’m referring to is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not a correct interpretation based on the plain language of the order.

I have seen texts from this litigation (and other litigation) where only one party’s side of the text is shown. I haven’t really been involved in production of texts before so I’m not sure what happens when Lively produces texts between her and Swift. But what I said about Swift’s texts is absolutely what Court’s order explaining the PO says. If Swift or some other third party is producing it, it doesn’t matter whether it’s relevant to the issues in the case - if it’s private and damaging to them to release they get to mark it AEO.

I had thought that the Baldoni folks in this thread were too far gone but that the folks who said they were neutral actually were neutral, but the way you are reading this PO when it is in absolute direct opposition to everything Freedman argued during the hearing regarding normal POs being limited only to trade secrets and the great burden that shifting the onus to Freedman to dispute the AEO designation would cause him is making me think you are gone.

Again, That isn’t how the order reads on its face. And if they were to mark it as such, it would be quickly contested and overturned.

Have you looked at the judges order explaining the PO, and not just the PO itself? That’s where the language re third party productions I’m referring to is.

Why don't you point out the language you think gives AEO protection to anything that is relevant to the allegations in the Complaints?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not a correct interpretation based on the plain language of the order.

I have seen texts from this litigation (and other litigation) where only one party’s side of the text is shown. I haven’t really been involved in production of texts before so I’m not sure what happens when Lively produces texts between her and Swift. But what I said about Swift’s texts is absolutely what Court’s order explaining the PO says. If Swift or some other third party is producing it, it doesn’t matter whether it’s relevant to the issues in the case - if it’s private and damaging to them to release they get to mark it AEO.

I had thought that the Baldoni folks in this thread were too far gone but that the folks who said they were neutral actually were neutral, but the way you are reading this PO when it is in absolute direct opposition to everything Freedman argued during the hearing regarding normal POs being limited only to trade secrets and the great burden that shifting the onus to Freedman to dispute the AEO designation would cause him is making me think you are gone.

Again, That isn’t how the order reads on its face. And if they were to mark it as such, it would be quickly contested and overturned.

Have you looked at the judges order explaining the PO, and not just the PO itself? That’s where the language re third party productions I’m referring to is.

Why don't you point out the language you think gives AEO protection to anything that is relevant to the allegations in the Complaints?

I can’t now but I will later.

[Anonymous]

"Highly personal and intimate information about third parties, and highly personal and
intimate information about parties other than information directly relevant to the truth
or falsity of any allegation in the complaints in this case."

This reads to me like highly personal and confidential information about third parties, such as Taylor Swift, could be marked AEO even if it is directly relevant to the case, if it is highly likely to cause significant injury (that part applies to anything marked AEO). I'm honestly not sure what could be so incredibly personal and intimate about Swift that would also be relevant to the case. This would seemingly come into play more as it pertains to potential other complaints by actresses on set, whose complaints would be highly personal and intimate but also directly relevant. Swift is very tangential to the case, and if the extortion claims are dismissed, really not relevant at 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.

You’re misreading the order. The AEO designation for highly personal or intimate information can only be applied to discovery deemed not relevant to the case.

[Anonymous]

BL’s lawyers are playing checkers and BF’s are playing chess. This PO is basically the compromise BF through out during the hearing. He clearly said he didn’t see security info as relevant at all and that obviously medical info should be protected. The trade secret argument was crap and BL’s attorneys just used it b/c it’s the most common use case for AEO. Liman granted protection for supposed PR trade secrets but explicitly said this protection could not be applied to anything related to iewu. Similarly with the PII protection there is an iewu carve out. Liman seems like a reasonable judge and it was clear by the amount of time he took to give his ruling that he was going to look for some sort of compromise that gives both parties clear guidance on how to proceed. The fact that BF indicated a willingness to compromise during the hearing clearly shows BF was leading the judge in the direction he wanted to go. BL’s lawyers scored no points with the judge by being uncompromising and they’re also not scoring any points with the public, which now thinks they have something to hide. Chess not checkers.

[Anonymous]

Hugh Jackman and Taylor Swift depositions? Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re misreading the order. The AEO designation for highly personal or intimate information can only be applied to discovery deemed not relevant to the case.

Agree, and I’m the person who made this very argument up thread. Just wanted to make clear there was more than one of us saying this.