Blake Lively’s Lawyer Cites Fear of Press Leaks in Push for Privacy Order

by

As a dedicated cinephile speaking on this matter, I found myself before a judge yesterday, expressing my concerns about the potential dissemination of sensitive details if we don’t secure a stringent confidentiality agreement in my dispute with my “It Ends With Us” co-star, Justin Baldoni. The fear is that without such an order, this private information could find its way into the hands of the media.

Lively aims for a directive restricting specific confidential data to be accessible solely by legal professionals, thus preventing them from disclosing it to their respective clients.

During a 90-minute session held on Thursday, attorney Meryl Governski for Lively expressed concern that a typical confidentiality agreement may not suffice to maintain privacy, as the case pertains to rival publicists who have easy connections to the media.

Governski stated that those involved in this case, from either side, are individuals who primarily earn a living by supplying information to media outlets and content producers. He suggested that there are numerous incentives for these parties to disclose information, as the public relations benefit often outweighs adhering to court orders.

In response to allegations of sexual harassment and a negative media campaign, Baldoni has filed a lawsuit for defamation. Meanwhile, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, are being sued by him as well.

The involved parties are having disagreements regarding the guidelines for the evidence-gathering phase. Lively’s group, in particular, expresses apprehension about sensitive details involving well-known people that could potentially become sensational news, even though such information may only have minor connection to the case at hand.

As a passionate cinephile, I found myself eagerly awaiting Judge Lewis Liman’s decision on Thursday. He posed some intriguing questions, yet refrained from delivering a verdict. However, he assured us that his ruling would be forthcoming “soon.

Lawyers for Lively and her representative, Leslie Sloane, contended that the case involves confidential “business secrets” which should only be accessible to them and not disclosed to the involved parties. This type of info encompasses marketing schemes, strategic business plans, and potential client lists. They asserted that if publicists from both sides of the case divulged such proprietary information to direct competitors, they would potentially place themselves at a disadvantage.

Attorney Bryan Freedman for Baldoni has requested that the court apply the usual protective order, without assigning certain materials as “attorney’s eyes only.” He explained that an extra level of confidentiality could create unnecessary complications, and stressed that this isn’t a typical trade secret matter.

“This is not the formula for Coke and Pepsi,” he said.

As a movie enthusiast, I confidently assure you that upholding the standard confidentiality agreement won’t be an issue for us, and I find it somewhat disrespectful to even imply otherwise.

Liman proposed that certain demands from Lively’s team seemed too wide-ranging, suggesting they could be made more specific. However, he also cautioned that, given the ongoing nature of the case, it was likely that pertinent confidential information related to the case would eventually be disclosed.

Much of what you’re discussing is built into the very essence of this case. When you bring a lawsuit against someone well-known in this field, it will likely attract media attention,” the judge explained. “The information that’s particularly important will inevitably be made public.

Read More

2025-03-06 21:04