Movies

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Lawyers Go Head-to-Head in Explosive Court Battle

BBG News

In court on Monday, the lawyers for Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni grew increasingly animated as fresh accusations were levied by both parties in their heated legal dispute.

Lawyer Bryan Freedman, representing Baldoni, urged the judge to expedite the case due to the severe distress his client was experiencing.

However, attorney Michael Gottlieb firmly refuted allegations suggesting that Lively intentionally delayed proceedings in the court case.

In simpler terms, Judge Lewis Liman refused to silence (gag) the team of Baldoni after Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson (Lively) requested it, following allegations made against them by Baldoni’s lawyers.

However, Gottlieb stated that they plan to bring new accusations against Baldoni in the context of Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit. Moreover, he emphasized that shielding their famous acquaintances would carry significant weight.

During the court hearing, Gottlieb stated that they plan on including ‘both claims and parties’ in an amended complaint, which they aim to submit before Valentine’s Day.

The action was taken following Baldoni’s revision of his original claim in his defamation lawsuit, where he alleged that Lively had provided The New York Times with early access to her accusations of sexual harassment while filming the movie “It Ends With Us.

In simpler terms, Gottlieb criticized Freedman for expressing opinions out of court that questioned Lively’s character, honesty, and truthfulness.

Following their complaints, Lively’s legal team was informed that they (Lively) had initiated the matter in response to the New York Times article, as stated by Gottlieb.

Gottlieb referenced an interview published by People Magazine, during which Freedman alleged that Lively exhibited a recurring behavior of bullying.

In a different assertion, Freedman suggested that if Lively truly experienced sexual harassment on set, she likely wouldn’t have gone back to work on the movie.

A skeptical Judge Liman said: ‘isn’t that what’s stated in his complaint?’

Gottlieb stated a refusal, emphasizing that attorneys should avoid making personal attacks against the opposing party.

He mentioned that the unauthorized release of uncensored clips from It Ends With Us was quite troubling, as it might trigger a competitive situation where legal representatives would need to respond to each revelation by making public appearances in the media.

If there are no safety barriers installed… it falls upon us (the attorneys) to interpret the meaning of specific documents or videos, often times engaging in debates about their significance on various public platforms.

In response, Freedman countered that the conversation wasn’t one-sided and proceeded to guide the court through several points presented by Lively’s legal team.

Following their statements, Judge Liman remarked that Freedman exceeded the boundaries set by Lively’s legal team slightly.

The judge announced that he would be implementing a rule, called Rule 3.6, which prohibits attorneys from making out-of-court statements that might sway the jury’s decision.

Initially, Judge Liman expressed reservations about it, but once both parties consented, he decided to go along with the agreement instead.

As a committed adherent, I anticipate that all parties involved will abide by their ethical responsibilities. I am hopeful that this situation won’t escalate into secondary disputes stemming from a legal counsel’s remarks.

‘Both have said a lot in the pleadings that give the public plenty to feast upon’.

Freedman attempted to voice his dissent, stating, “I don’t want to come off as a child defending another child by saying ‘they started it,’ but when someone declares something, it essentially turns into truth, leaving no room for argument.

‘We didn’t initiate this situation, but it seems that items are disappearing without the option of legal resolution through a court.’ (or)

‘This issue wasn’t caused by us, but it appears that things are being misplaced beyond the reach of court judgement.’

Judge Liman issued a caution, stating that should both parties fail to adhere to proper conduct, he might advance the trial date from next March.

He said: ‘I’m not going to do that, I’m convinced the parties need the time for discovery.

If the situation arises where this matter becomes publicly discussed in a manner that could potentially bias the chance for a fair trial, the court has the ability to expedite the trial date.

‘That’s something that is out there. I don’t want to do that.’

Previously during the proceedings, Gottlieb, who is representing Reynolds, mentioned his intention to obtain a protective court order for future disclosures. This measure aims to safeguard the privacy of the couple’s famous acquaintances.

In the complaint made by Baldoni, it’s possible that Taylor Swift could be among those targeted, given that she is someone who has been mentioned within it.

In this situation, we anticipate that a suitable protective measure will be included in the order due to the specific nature of the accusations and because some of the people involved are well-known figures.

‘There is a significant number of high profile individuals on both sides.

It’s crucial that we prioritize the interests and requirements of any outside parties involved in this situation.

In his statement, Gottlieb mentioned that he intended to look for safeguards deemed crucial, especially in situations involving substantial leakage of materials.

He said: ‘We do intend to propose a protective order in this case.’

Judge Liman concurred, noting that even prior to naming the other parties, ‘there were already quite a few notable individuals’ involved.

Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said he would be prepared to agree to the order.

Additionally, Gottlieb discussed the concept of discovery and highlighted that there would be substantial information uncovered regarding how Baldoni and the other defendants manipulated and advanced their counterattack plan through the media.

Additionally, he discussed locating information regarding people possibly compensated for holding specific viewpoints within the public sphere.

In today’s initial court hearing, Freedman, acting on behalf of Baldoni and his public relations team, urged the judge to expedite the case due to the significant distress his clients were experiencing.

Following Blake Lively’s legal team’s statement, they plan to file new accusations of sexual harassment against Justin Baldoni in the ongoing case.

Freedman argued to the court, ‘It’s crucial that we push for discovery to proceed immediately as the harm has already occurred and continues since the New York Times published its article.’

Freedman stated that Wayfair suffered significant financial losses, estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars, and Melissa Nathan, who was handling public relations for Baldoni during the film controversy, also reportedly lost some of her clientele.

In other words, he stated that when matters reach the media, particularly The New York Times, sometimes people respond before a legal decision has been made. These individuals are experiencing significant hardship as a result.

From the standpoint of our clients’ need for a sustainable income in the future, it’s crucial that we advance at the swiftest pace feasible.

As a die-hard fan, I can’t help but share some exciting news about my beloved idol, Baldoni. Freedman predicted that the defamation suit Baldoni filed against the New York Times in California would be tossed out of court. However, Exciting times ahead for us fans, as we eagerly follow this legal saga!

According to Judge Liman, the two lawsuits filed by Baldoni and Lively in New York have been merged into one case.

Later, Freedman found himself deeply affected by the damage inflicted on Baldoni’s team. They were not only facing significant financial losses but also experiencing profound emotional distress. The urgency for the case to progress swiftly was palpable.

However, Judge Liman seemed agitated when he questioned Freedman about the reason behind submitting a 168-page timeline of the case along with his amended lawsuit.

The judge said it seemed like the kind of thing that the ‘rules were designed to prevent’.

‘You can’t just give me a complaint and give me a whole bunch of documents’, the judge said.

Judge Liman asked: ‘What is the purpose of that attachment?’ 

Freedman claimed that it ‘formed the basis’ of the underlying claims.

Tensions rose as Gottlieb said that he would seek the document struck from the case.

He said that Freedman’s description of the material was ‘not accurate’.

According to Gottlieb, the text contained long stretches without any identifiable speaker, making it impossible for him to offer a response.

He also rejected the idea that Lively was dragging their heels.

He stated that “since August, our clients have faced a persistent series of reprisals as a consequence of reporting instances of sexual harassment.” Moreover, he emphasized that this situation has been extremely harmful for Lively and remains ongoing.

According to Gottlieb, our client is extremely motivated to proceed and have her case heard in the court.

In simpler terms, Judge Liman made it clear that Gottlieb had no authority to prevent Freedman from acting as Lively’s attorney during the deposition.

The judge expressed his doubt, stating, “I believe that event won’t take place,” and added that the decision wouldn’t fall on Gottlieb.

Originally sent as a letter to the judge on January 27, the attorney for the couple had requested a meeting to discuss their escalating worries about lawyer Bryan Freedman’s suspected behavior outside of court, which they label as potential “extrajudicial misconduct.

According to an exclusive DailyMail.com filing, Freedman’s recent media interviews and a new website launched by Baldoni’s team are cited as means for selectively distributing documents and messages exchanged between the two disputing cast members.

In simple terms, the actors from “The It Ends with Us” weren’t required to show up at the initial hearing for their conflicting $400 million defamation lawsuits, which took place in New York at 11 am. This event signifies the first phase of their legal disputes.

37-year-old actress has fiercely criticized Freedman for making ‘aggressive and vengeful’ remarks about her in the press, and is seeking Judge Lewis Liman to restrain the vocal attorney from speaking further publicly.

I can hardly contain my excitement as I anticipate the next chapter unfolding in Team Baldoni’s high-profile legal battle! It’s clear they’re keeping their promise, as evidenced by their commitment to share fresh updates on their dedicated website, starting this very Saturday. I simply can’t wait to see how this intriguing saga continues to unfold!

On its launch, TheLawsuitInfo.com posted updated copies of Baldoni’s lawsuit and a chronological diagram illustrating key moments in the escalating dispute that unfolded while filming the upcoming 2024 adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s renowned novel, detailing the evolution of their explosive feud.

The cache contains unexpected messages suggesting that Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s Hollywood actor husband, appeared to have a fondness for Baldoni before their relationship became strained. In these messages, he expressed his excitement about Blake opening her creative potential with someone as vibrant as Baldoni and admitted to admiring him, Justin.

In a playful exchange between Lively and Baldoni, aged 41, regarding the script for the crucial rooftop scene in the movie, Lively writes: ‘If we had more time together, you’d understand that the dialogue is filled with flirtatious and tantalizing tension.’

‘It’s my love language. Spicy and playfully bold, never with teeth.’

It is yet unclear what Judge Liman, who was appointed by President Trump, thinks about the recent public relations strategy by Team Baldoni.

Instead, Freedman and his team plan to assert that the two documents in question were simply publicly accessible court records, freely available online through the U.S. Federal Government’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.

A source from DailyMail.com mentioned that it’s crucial to clarify there’s no financial gain involved in this. Instead, it’s just a platform providing access to legally available documents that are already open to the public.

This action doesn’t aim to instigate conflict; instead, it underscores their commitment to maintaining transparency.

As an ardent admirer, let me express that Judge Liman is set to determine if the tenacious showbiz attorney, Freedman, renowned for representing figures such as Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Julia Roberts, can cross-examine Lively under oath on behalf of Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios.

In a letter sent to the court on Friday, lawyers representing Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds expressed their disagreement with the main lawyer for the Wayfarer group leading the deposition of Blake Lively, which was written by attorney Kevin Fritz.

In summary, the legal team for the Lively parties stated their objection to Bryan J. Freedman, specifically, conducting Ms Lively’s deposition, due to unspoken comments allegedly made by him.

Fritz contended that the action was unjustified, further remarking: ‘Litigating parties don’t possess the authority to decide which lawyers representing their opposing sides are eligible or ineligible to conduct depositions.’

Read More

2025-02-03 22:11

Previous post Lady Gaga’s Abracadabra music video is a must-see masterpiece
Next post PlatinumGames Has Removed Project G.G. From its Website, Sparking Fears it May Have Been Cancelled