Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

I’m not familiar with the process of producing text messages. Does each person produce both sides of the conversation as with emails? I have seen texts in this case and others where only one side of the conversation is visible. I’m not sure whether Lively would need to produce Swift’s side of the string; if so marking that AEO is tougher but I would need to review the complaint more closely to see whether Swift’s feelings about JB would really be considered relevant and at issue in the complaint - if not that part might be AEO. (In normal discovery if one section of a doc is highly confidential the entire doc can be marked confidential - might work the same with AEO, but I haven’t read the whole PO, it may talk about redactions etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

I’m not familiar with the process of producing text messages. Does each person produce both sides of the conversation as with emails? I have seen texts in this case and others where only one side of the conversation is visible. I’m not sure whether Lively would need to produce Swift’s side of the string; if so marking that AEO is tougher but I would need to review the complaint more closely to see whether Swift’s feelings about JB would really be considered relevant and at issue in the complaint - if not that part might be AEO. (In normal discovery if one section of a doc is highly confidential the entire doc can be marked confidential - might work the same with AEO, but I haven’t read the whole PO, it may talk about redactions etc.)

Dp. Ok, just stop. You’re obviously not a lawyer and it’s exhausting. Did you come here from reddit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

I’m not familiar with the process of producing text messages. Does each person produce both sides of the conversation as with emails? I have seen texts in this case and others where only one side of the conversation is visible. I’m not sure whether Lively would need to produce Swift’s side of the string; if so marking that AEO is tougher but I would need to review the complaint more closely to see whether Swift’s feelings about JB would really be considered relevant and at issue in the complaint - if not that part might be AEO. (In normal discovery if one section of a doc is highly confidential the entire doc can be marked confidential - might work the same with AEO, but I haven’t read the whole PO, it may talk about redactions etc.)

Dp. Ok, just stop. You’re obviously not a lawyer and it’s exhausting. Did you come here from reddit?

I am a lawyer, though. Are you? Are you also someone who thinks this was a big win for Freedman lol?

[Anonymous]

Remember, if third party Swift is producing it, it makes no difference whether it’s relevant to the case - if it includes personal intimate info etc, her attorneys can mark it AEO. See Judge Liman’s language in his order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

I’m not familiar with the process of producing text messages. Does each person produce both sides of the conversation as with emails? I have seen texts in this case and others where only one side of the conversation is visible. I’m not sure whether Lively would need to produce Swift’s side of the string; if so marking that AEO is tougher but I would need to review the complaint more closely to see whether Swift’s feelings about JB would really be considered relevant and at issue in the complaint - if not that part might be AEO. (In normal discovery if one section of a doc is highly confidential the entire doc can be marked confidential - might work the same with AEO, but I haven’t read the whole PO, it may talk about redactions etc.)

Dp. Ok, just stop. You’re obviously not a lawyer and it’s exhausting. Did you come here from reddit?

I am a lawyer, though. Are you? Are you also someone who thinks this was a big win for Freedman lol?

Pp. I’m a lawyer, yes. You’re clearly not, so let’s just stop pretending.

To address the issue and your earlier claim:

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

This is not a highly personal or intimate statement and it’s also relevant to the case. The judge wouldn’t uphold it as AEO if BL’a side tried to claim it should be protected. Perhaps if Taylor had added ‘and I’m pregnant with Kelces baby but I don’t want it and plan to abort it’ - that would be AEO. See the difference?

I’m the one who called this order a nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember, if third party Swift is producing it, it makes no difference whether it’s relevant to the case - if it includes personal intimate info etc, her attorneys can mark it AEO. See Judge Liman’s language in his order.

Sorry, a real lawyer would understand the import of words like ‘highly’


You’re not a lawyer. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Haha the nothing burger lady. Enough said. I’ll hold up my interpretation of the PO against yours any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haha the nothing burger lady. Enough said. I’ll hold up my interpretation of the PO against yours any day.

No idea what you mean. I haven’t read your interpretation and I signed off for most of the PO debate on this thread. Because it’s not a big deal either way. Are you some young swiftie who’s gotten involved here to protect your girl? I really don’t see why you care so much. This is NBD either way. And fwiw I’m not team anyone. Im more interested in the press side of this case than the two actors and certainly TS who I respect but otherwise think little about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.[parties.

They didn’t "just use" trade secrets as an excuse. They actually expanded the definition of trade secrets to include creative stuff that relates to scripts and filmmaking and marketingplans and requested and received for public companies to be protected I addition to non public ones. So if seems this has substantive value to the Reynolds and Lively side. Remember they have several businesses that play in important role in this case, that wasn't just something they threw in.

The PII relates to their social security numbers, phone, email, etc. Have no idea what that has to do with IEWU.

This order forces BF to do what he did not want to have to do which is go to the judge every time he disagrees with the designation. He wanted them to have to make the effort to get a higher designation. Now I do believe the judge is fair and if Lively's lawyers abuse it, he will modify it, but as it stands, it's far closer to what Lively wanted.

BF made the burden argument because it’s a practical argument to make but trust and believe he does not care about the burden. He’s paid by the hour (likely in 15 min increments) and Steve Sorowitz is a billionaire and is paying the bill.

Lawyer again. Yes, exactly. Every lawyer on this case is fairly content with what’s happening here, good and bad. This is a huge cash cow for all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

I’m not familiar with the process of producing text messages. Does each person produce both sides of the conversation as with emails? I have seen texts in this case and others where only one side of the conversation is visible. I’m not sure whether Lively would need to produce Swift’s side of the string; if so marking that AEO is tougher but I would need to review the complaint more closely to see whether Swift’s feelings about JB would really be considered relevant and at issue in the complaint - if not that part might be AEO. (In normal discovery if one section of a doc is highly confidential the entire doc can be marked confidential - might work the same with AEO, but I haven’t read the whole PO, it may talk about redactions etc.)

You aren’t familiar with being a litigator at all, as the paragraph above makes clear. That or you have no understanding of the phrase “highly personal.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As others have posted, the language of the PO distinguishes between personal information of the parties vs. the non-parties, and specifically notes that personal information about non-parties will receive greater AEO protections than that of parties (i.e., it will be protected whether it's relevant to the case or not):

The AEO category covers "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."

The order the judge issued (visible through some of the discussion from the youtube lawyers who kind of miss the point on this, though I didn't listen to all 40 minutes of their nonsense) explains this a little more:

"The most challenging AEO category is '[h]ighly 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 case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation related to such harassment. [cite] Lively has asserted claims for damages in the form of emotional distress. [cite] Some information of a personal and intimate nature regarding the parties will inevitably have to be shared with persons other than the attorneys. The parties who are making the accusations of who are the subject of the accusations have a right to participate in the prosecution and defense of the claims. The attorneys have a need to consult with their clients. At the same time, however, it is in the nature of discovery that the net will be cast wide and that each side will be forced to disclose to the other information of a sensitive personal and intimate nature that is not necessary or even relevant to the prosecution or defense of the claims. The point is even more apparent with respect to non-parties. Those persons have not signed up for this lawsuit. But, by virtue of the Rule 45 subpoena power, they will inevitably be brought into it. And their personal information which may be contained in the documents to be discover[ed] [sic] may well be the least centrally relevant to the determination of this action. In order to facilitate the flow of discovery, and AEO provision is appropriate for that category of information. Before the parties make an AEO designation, the protective order places on them the burden of determining that the information is not directly relevant to an allegation in the pleadings. For the non-parties, no such burden is appropriate. They are entitled to designate all information in this category as Attorneys Eyes Only, placing the burden to demonstrate the importance of the information for the prosecution or the defense of a claim on the counsel seeking to disclose the information to her client."

In other words, as I said, if Swift is called upon to produce documents, she can mark anything that is highly personal or intimate as AEO. As produced, Freedman won't be able to show that information to his client, it will be limited to lawyers and experts, etc. If Freedman wants to challenge the designation, of course he can, but he will need to be able to show why it is so relevant to the case that he needs to show his client. That is exactly the kind of burden shifting that Freedman was arguing against during the hearing, and he lost that argument. Remember, he was incensed that Lively was asking for anything outside of trade secrets to be considered AEO in the first place, and then was more incensed that Lively was asking for third party friends to get special treatment for their private information. The judge solved that problem by allowing the AEO standard to apply to private information from any non-party (and not just celebrity friends lol), but this is absolutely a loss for Freedman, who FIRST AND FOREMOST wanted Lively and Swift and everyone else to come to him begging every time they wanted a document to be treated as Attorneys Eyes Only, which he lost because everyone can so designate those documents on their own and if he disagrees the burden shifts to HIM to contest it. SECONDLY, imho, Freedman also wanted to be able to (1) use the litigation to turn salacious details about Swift over to the public and thus maybe create further interest in the case for Baldoni, and (2) create further hatred of Lively for being the supposed cause of this for Swift, and (3) maybe cause some further rift between Lively and Swift through the whole process.

Lively's attorneys came in asking for PO protections that what would basically benefit Swift as much as they could, and if you look at the comments on this thread from the time of the filings, the Baldoni/Freedman supporters could not believe Lively's attorneys were asking for all of these things! AEO for your friends' personal information?! It simply was not done! And yet, they did ask for this, and to a large part, it was granted to them.

This is not Freedman playing 3D chess. This is Freedman being petulant and punitive during the oral arguments, after having refued to give Lively even a little of what she wanted during the meet and confer negotiations, and then Judge Liman deciding that Lively was more right than Freedman. Sorry not sorry.

I just want you to know that I didn’t read a word of this, and I know I’m not the only one.

And also reiterating, anything in Taylor’s possession or knowledge about Blake’s work on It Ends With Us wis by definition not highly personal to Taylor and not entitled to AEO protection.

And yet, according to the terms of the PO and the explanation provided in the judge's order, Swift is absolutely entitled to produce all such materials as AEO, and Freedman will have to argue it out and, if necessary, prevail with the judge.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. This is literally already the case, even with just the model protective order (minus the meet and confer requirement). The parties always had the right apply AEO and take it to the judge if the other side disagreed. By laying out parameters, Liman is hoping to minimize how many times they’ll have to bring these disputes to him. If either party repeatedly attempts to designate things AEO that are clearly out of scope of what he’s outlined, he won’t like that and will likely penalize the lawyers.

The contortions you perform to make this sound like less of a loss for Freedman are impressive. Without the PO Swift could not just produce materials designated as AEO - she would have had to meet and confer with Freedman to get agreement, and given Freedman’s position during the hearing he would not have considered anything but SSNs and medical records from Swift as AEO. This is much broader, obviously, at least, to me.

Let me give you an example. If Taylor texts Blake “I hate JB and am so glad you’re taking over the movie” that would be neither personal nor initimate. If BL’s lawyers mark something like that AEO and take it to the judge, they will be scolded. The judge gave them parameters to help minimize debate about what should be AEO and what should not be AEO.

I would argue that if Swift were producing that document she could mark it AEO because “I hate [this person]” is an extremely personal statement for a celebrity and the JB part of it could cause damage to her reputation given the number of rabid Baldoni fans that currently exist.

I’m not familiar with the process of producing text messages. Does each person produce both sides of the conversation as with emails? I have seen texts in this case and others where only one side of the conversation is visible. I’m not sure whether Lively would need to produce Swift’s side of the string; if so marking that AEO is tougher but I would need to review the complaint more closely to see whether Swift’s feelings about JB would really be considered relevant and at issue in the complaint - if not that part might be AEO. (In normal discovery if one section of a doc is highly confidential the entire doc can be marked confidential - might work the same with AEO, but I haven’t read the whole PO, it may talk about redactions etc.)

Dp. Ok, just stop. You’re obviously not a lawyer and it’s exhausting. Did you come here from reddit?

I am a lawyer, though. Are you? Are you also someone who thinks this was a big win for Freedman lol?

Dp, and agree that you are definitely not a lawyer. And clearly have never worked with a protective order before.

[Anonymous]

You guys are funny because you have lots of opinions on the legal issues but on this PO at least they have mostly been wrong. I am a lawyer but I do corporate law and we don’t ever have to produce texts tbh. But go off lol!

[Anonymous]

Wow all the ace attorneys on DCUM spamming during a work day about a bunch of Hollywood degenerates must have lucrative books…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are funny because you have lots of opinions on the legal issues but on this PO at least they have mostly been wrong. I am a lawyer but I do corporate law and we don’t ever have to produce texts tbh. But go off lol!

Do, I’m glad you admited that because it’s been very clear you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to litigation.