Blake Lively‘s lawyer warned a judge Thursday that without a strict confidentiality order in her suit against “It Ends With Us” co-star Justin Baldoni, private information could easily leak to the press.
Lively is seeking an order that would limit certain sensitive information to “attorneys eyes only,” meaning that the attorneys could not share it with their own clients.
At a 90-minute hearing on Thursday, Lively’s attorney Meryl Governski warned that a standard confidentiality order would not be enough to ensure secrecy, given that the case involves warring publicists with ready access to the media.
“The parties in this case, on both sides, include people whose entire living is made off providing information to the press and content creators,” Governski said. “There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders.”
Lively is suing Baldoni, who also directed the film, for sexual harassment and for waging a media smear campaign against her after she raised complaints. Baldoni is suing her and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, for defamation.
The parties are at odds over the rules that will govern the discovery process. Lively’s side is particularly concerned about intimate information concerning “high profile individuals,” which might make tabloid fodder despite marginal relevance to the case.
Judge Lewis Liman asked questions but did not issue a ruling on Thursday, saying he would do so “soon.”
Attorneys for Lively and her publicist, Leslie Sloane, argued that the case involves “trade secrets” that should be limited to the attorneys and not shared with the parties. Such information would include marketing plans, business strategies and lists of prospective clients. They argued that the publicists on either side of the case would be putting themselves at a disadvantage by sharing such non-public information with direct competitors.
Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, has asked the court to impose the standard protective order, which does not include the designation of “attorneys eyes only” material. He argued that the additional layer of confidentiality would prove cumbersome, and that this is not a typical trade secret case.
“This is not the formula for Coke and Pepsi,” he said.
Freedman also said that his side would have no trouble adhering to a standard confidentiality order, and that it was “rather offensive” to suggest otherwise.
Liman suggested that some of the requests from Lively’s side were overly broad, and that he might narrow them. But he also warned that, as long as the case goes on, sensitive information that is relevant to the case is bound to come out.
“A lot of what you are talking about is inherent in the nature of the case. If you sue a high-profile person in this industry, it’s going to get picked up by the press,” the judge said. “The stuff that’s highly relevant is going to end up being disclosed.”
