JOIN OUR WHATSAPP CHANNEL
What Protective Order Did Judge Grant to Blake Lively Against Justin Baldoni Amid Ongoing Legal Feud? Explained
Check the article below and know which order Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Blake Lively amid her legal feud with Justin Baldoni.
Everyone’s eyes are glued to their screens these days for updates on the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni drama. In a new development, The Shallows actress has been granted a modified protective order in the case against her It Ends With Us co-star, according to People magazine.
As per the report, the scope of restrictions sought by her have been limited by the court. The decision, made by Judge Lewis J. Liman, came on Thursday, March 13. It was reportedly ruled that certain confidential material would be protected. As per the outlet, an "Attorney’s Eyes Only" designation can be applied only if its disclosure is “highly likely to cause significant business, commercial, financial, or privacy injury.”
This ruling follows The Age of Adaline actress's ask on March 6 for stricter safeguards to not let private information from being leaked to the media or circulating within Hollywood, according to the publication.
The judge reportedly noted in his written ruling the risks involved in spreading sensitive details through industry gossip.
It will be interesting to see netizens' reactions to this decision, as many have been closely following even the smallest details of this drama and sharing their opinions online.
Following the ruling, Lively's spokesperson stated: “Today, the Court rejected the Wayfarer Parties' objections and entered the protections needed to ensure the free flow of discovery material without any risk of witness intimidation or harm to any individual’s security.”
The spokesperson further added that with this order in place, the actress will proceed with the discovery process to gather more evidence supporting her allegations in court.
On Baldoni’s side, his attorney, Bryan Freedman, also issued a statement, saying they fully support the court’s decision to grant “a narrow scope of protections to categories such as private mental health records and personal security measures” that were never of interest to them. He contrasted this with what he described as “Ms. Lively’s exceedingly overbroad demand for documents covering a 2.5-year period, which the court rightly quashed.”
Freedman emphasized that their focus remains on obtaining communications necessary that will "directly contradict Ms. Lively’s unfounded accusations."
Who Are Sean "Diddy" Combs' Kids? Everything to Know About Them
Latest Articles
