Blake LiveliThe lawyer on Thursday warned a judge that “it ends with us” without a strict privacy order in his suit against the co-star. Justin BaldoniPrivate information can easily leak to the press.
Liveli is demanding an order that will limit some sensitive information to “only the eyes of lawyers”, which means that lawyers cannot share it with their customers.
In a 90 -minute hearing on Thursday, Livali’s Attorney Meril Gawnski warned that a standard privacy order would not be sufficient to ensure privacy, given that the case included the campaigners fighting with a ready access to the media.
“In this case, the parties, both sides, include people whose entire life has been stopped to provide information to the press and material creators,” Gawnski said. “There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information as the PR price exceeds compliance with court orders.”
Liveli is sueing Baldoni, who also directed the film, for sexual harassment and after raising complaints to tease the media smear campaign against her. Baldoni is sueing her and her husband Ryan Reynolds for defamation.
Parties are on obstacles on rules that will control the search process. Livali’s side is particularly concerned about intimate information related to “high profile individuals”, which can create tabloid bait despite the marginal relevance for the case.
Judge Lewis Liman asked questions but did not issue a decision on Thursday, saying that he would do “soon”.
Lively and his preacher, lawyers for Leslie Slone argued that the case included the “business secret” that should be limited to lawyers and not shared with parties. Such information will include marketing plans, business strategies and list of future customers. He argued that preachers on both sides of the case would harm themselves by sharing such non-public information with direct contestants.
Baldoni’s lawyer, Brian Freedman, has asked the court to impose standard protective orders, which does not include the designation of the material “only the eyes of lawyers”. He argued that the additional layer of privacy would prove cumbersome, and this is not a specific trade secret case.
“This is not a formula for coke and pepsi,” he said.
Freedman also said that his side would have no problem in following a standard privacy order, and otherwise it was “aggressive” to suggest.
Limon suggested that some requests from Livali’s side were extremely widespread, and he could narrow them. But he also warned that by the time the matter progresses, sensitive information which is relevant to the case is bound to come out.
“What you are talking about lies in the nature of the case. If you sue a high-profile person in this industry, it is going to be raised by the press, ”said the judge. “The goods that are highly relevant are about to be revealed.”
