Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s lawyers clashed yet again during the second fiery hearing in their $400 million legal war on Thursday.
Attorneys for the actress claimed that without proper protections, Baldoni might tell the press about her security arrangements and her medical information, as well as her conversations with celebrity friends and her husband Ryan Reynolds.
Even details about Lively’s children or ‘profound mental issues’ could be leaked if they were given to Baldoni, her lawyers claimed.
Baldoni’s attorneys hit back and said that the idea they would do this was ‘offensive’ and said that Lively was asking for a ‘different law’ to protect their powerful and famous friends.
The hearing, held on Zoom from the Manhattan federal court, was the latest twist in the dispute between Lively and Baldoni, who starred together in the movie ‘It Ends With Us’, which Baldoni also directed and produced.
Baldoni, 41, and Lively have sued each other for defamation and claimed they both tried to destroy each other’s reputation.
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s lawyers clashed yet again during the second fiery hearing in their $400 million legal war at Manhattan federal court Thursday
Attorneys for the actress claimed that without proper protections, Baldoni might tell the press about her security arrangements and her medical information, as well as her conversations with celebrity friends and her husband Ryan Reynolds
Lively was the first to sue at a court in New York and Baldoni retaliated with a $400 million defamation case against Lively, 37, and her husband Ryan Reynolds, 48.
Baldoni is also suing the New York Times for defamation for publishing a lengthy story about Lively’s claims last December.
The hearing in New York related to requests from Lively’s lawyers to have an ‘Attorney’s Eyes Only’ category on the protective order on the case.
Protective orders prevent both sides from publicly disclosing private information but the ‘Attorney’s Eyes Only’ request proposed by Lively is an additional measure.
The court heard that it was necessary to protect ‘trade secrets’ like PR agencies’ business plans, marketing strategies and client lists, which are not always public.
Lively’s lawyer Meryl Governskii said the extra step was needed to prevent ‘irreparable harm’ to Lively, Reynolds and their associates.
The hearing in New York related to requests from Lively’s lawyers to have an ‘Attorney’s Eyes Only’ category on the protective order on the case
Baldoni’s attorneys hit back and said that the idea they would do this was ‘offensive’ and said that Lively was asking for a ‘different law’ to protect their powerful and famous friends
She said there was concern that ‘specific security measures Ms Lively and Mr Reynolds have taken to protect themselves and their families from this retaliatory campaign’ might be leaked.
She cited the fact that Baldoni had subpoenaed a security firm which works with the couple, and that she ‘didn’t see any reason’ why their security arrangements should be made public.
Judge Lewis Liman asked if Governskii was saying Baldoni’s lawyers posed a ‘risk to your client’s security’.
She said no but this case was unusual in that it involved PR companies who make a living leaking material to the press.
Governskii said that Baldoni’s team had bragged about doing this ‘without fingerprints’ and in an ‘untraceable way’.
Baldoni had worked with ‘individuals who will do anything and hate Ms Lively’, and was working on an ‘unlimited budget’.
Lively’s lawyer cited the fact that Baldoni had subpoenaed a security firm which works with the couple, and that she ‘didn’t see any reason’ why their security arrangements should be made public
Baldoni had ‘committed $100 million to ruin the lives of Ms Lively and her family’, the judge was told.
Governskii said that another category of concern was medical information and mentioned ‘profound mental health issues’.
She was concerned documents ‘speaking about children’ may be made public as well as ‘locations of private residences or homes’.
Governskii was also worried that ‘personal and intimate conversations’ with third parties who have a ‘marginal relevance to this case’ but the ‘PR value will be high’ would be leaked.
There are ‘dozens and dozens’ of third parties who will come up in the case but there is a ‘significant chance of irreparable harm’ if marginally relevant information about them was made public, she added.
Judge Liman asked if contempt proceedings would be ‘sufficient’ to enforce a protective order.
Baldoni’s lawyer Freedman rejected the idea they would leak information about security arrangements for Lively and Reynolds and said it was ‘not even remotely relevant’ to the case
But Governskii disagreed and said that contempt proceedings would not ‘unring the bell’ if personal information was made public.
‘Also with respect to health and mental health records that have absolutely no business being released’, she said.
Governskii claimed that Baldoni’s lawyers would still leak the details because ‘the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders’.
Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman shot back that it was ‘rather offensive anyone would suggest we’d disregard a protective order’.
He said that the model order normally used by Judge Liman, which does not have an ‘Attorney Eyes Only’ clause, was ‘sufficient’.
Freedman said: ‘It feels like what the other side are asking for is because there is celebrity, because there are powerful people in the industry somehow they get treated differently, somehow there’s a different law that applies to them that otherwise wouldn’t apply to normal everyday people.’
Lively’s lawyer Meryl Governskii said the the request to put the case in the ‘Attorney’s Eyes Only’ category was needed to prevent ‘irreparable harm’ to Lively, Reynolds and their associates
Freedman added that they would abide by any protective order and that they ‘wouldn’t dispute’ that Lively’s medical records should be confidential.
He rejected the idea they would leak information about security arrangements for Lively and Reynolds and said it was ‘not even remotely relevant’ to the case.
‘It is a complete ruse and not relevant at all,’ he said. ‘I don’t know why that even comes up and why that’s even a concern’.
Freedman also complained that his clients’ addresses had been revealed to the public already in court papers, which he called ‘highly offensive and unnecessary’.
Judge Liman reserved his decision, saying he’d make his ruling later today, but not before one last plea from Freedman.
He said: ‘This is a case where no one has any intention of beating up or harming Ms Lively in any way’.
Baldoni’s lawyers responded with a letter to the judge saying that, given how public Lively had been about the case, they were ‘surprised to now learn how vehemently she wants to prevent the public from accessing material and relevant evidence’
Freedman claimed that Baldoni had been ‘adjudicated guilty right when the case was filed’ and he had a right to defend himself.
‘This (mounting a defense) is not in any way abusing the victim’, he said.
The dispute over the protective order has led to yet another skirmish in a case that has rapidly ballooned into one of the most bitter and public feuds in public memory.
In legal filings, Lively’s lawyers pushed for greater protection of materials and they said that having intimate details made public could end up ‘exposing (her) to threats’.
Baldoni’s lawyers responded with a letter to the judge saying that, given how public Lively had been about the case, they were ‘surprised to now learn how vehemently she wants to prevent the public from accessing material and relevant evidence’.
They also accused her of trying to ‘rehabilitate her tarnished image’.
The case dates back to a December 21 article titled ‘We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine’, The New York Times shed light on allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation made by Lively against Baldoni during the production of It Ends With Us.
Following this, Baldoni and his PR team filed a $250 million lawsuit against the Times on December 31.
The 87-page libel complaint filed in LA Superior Court accused the NYT and its journalists of being in league with Lively with the December 21 article that ‘cherry-picked and altered communications stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead.’
While that case was dropped, Baldoni has added the New York Times to his $400 million defamation case against Lively.
Among those who have been dragged into the dispute is Lively’s friend Taylor Swift, who is set to be subpoenaed during the case.
Last week Lively’s lawyers accused Baldoni of being ‘shameless’ while raw footage from ‘This Ends With Us’ has been leaked to try and show that Lively was happy during the filming.
Baldoni recently dismissed claims in the Los Angeles Times from former employees at Wayfarer Studios, his production company, that he presided over a ‘phony’ workplace full of ‘toxic positivity’.
The case even made a mention in the Oscars when Reynolds cracked a joke about it from the audience, prompting a shocked look on Lively’s face.