Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni’s Court Privacy Battle Explained

[Source: Popcorned Planet]

Celebrity lawyer and legal analyst Christopher C. Melcher, who is ranked as a best family law attorney in California, explains Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni‘s Legal Privacy Battle & Attorney Eyes Only Order.

Andy Signore:

Andy Signore: There’s been a lot of talk about whether Justin or Blake won the personal intimate information disclosure. We got celebrity divorce lawyer and legal analyst Christopher C. Melcher here to break it down. Welcome to Popcorn Planet. I am Andy Signore. So glad to have Christopher Melcher back. How you doing, sir?

Christopher Melcher:

Really good. Glad to keep talking about this story with the It Ends With Us legal drama. It’s just never stops.

Andy Signore:

Are you really, though? Is anybody? You’re just that nice. It is interesting. And this is an interesting update, I will admit it is because, look, we did a whole stream. I got backlash, Chris, because I didn’t see this protective order as a win for Justin. A lot of people are trying to spin it as a win for Justin. I saw this as a win for Blake.

4 Quadrants Lively & Baldoni’s Teams Agreed On

Just a quick recap and then please correct me, yes, Blake ended up getting a designation. Here are the four quadrants that they agreed upon: trade secrets, security measures, medical information.

None of that seemed that problematic, but it was this last one, highly personal and intimate information about third parties, highly personal, intimate information about parties other than information directly relevant to the truth or falsity of any allegation in the complaints in this case.

When I read that, it’s very broad. Now, later it says, “Yes, of course all things about Justin and It Ends With Us will be in,” but am I crazy or does that seem like a problematic, more of an annoying thing the team Justin’s going to have to deal with?

Christopher Melcher:

Well, it is problematic and annoying potentially for both parties, but I think here is Justin is the one who needs information from Blake- more than Blake needs information from Justin, so I think he’s more impacted by this order. Just to set the stage a little bit, what happens when somebody goes to court when they can’t resolve their dispute, they surrender it to a court system, judge or jury to be decided, and these are public forums, so everything that’s set in court or filed in court is generally public record. And so we give up that right of privacy to have a judge decide this matter in a US court. Now, what we’re talking about here in this order is pretrial discovery, meaning that each party has the right to compel the other to produce information, answer questions before going to trial. They evaluate that information, determine whether it’s worthy or relevant, and then they present it in open court.

This order saying, “Sure, go forth and get information from each other parties.” However, there are certain categories of information that’s so sensitive and private that it needs to be protected from disclosure. And I understand if there’s a medical record, if there’s some reason to get a medical record, and usually that comes up because somebody’s saying, “Hey, I’m so distraught by what this other person did to me that I can’t sleep at night and I have pain and suffering and emotional distress,” okay, well if you went to the doctor for it, we’re entitled to see what you complained to the doctor about and how long that’s really been going on and what the diagnosis was. But those medical records are really sensitive. They need to be protected. Totally agree with it.

You’re right, it’s that category D, highly personal and intimate information about third parties or about the parties themselves. Well, who’s going to decide this when it’s turning it over? When Blake says, “Oh, all of my text messages are of course highly personal and intimate, therefore I’m designating them as such.”

Attorney Eyes Only Order

And here’s the kicker: Attorney eyes only is the order, meaning that if Blake Lively produces some text messages with herself or about a third party and over to Justin’s side, she can designate it as being highly personal and intimate.

And that means that Justin cannot see that document, only his attorney can see it. And I’ve spoken out against these rules because it interferes with the attorney-client relationship. If I, as an attorney, are representing you and I now obtain what I think is really powerful evidence but I can’t share it with you, I can just say, “Hey Andy, great news. I got this smoking gun.” And you’re going to be, “What is it?” “Oh, I can’t tell you about it. I can’t even show it to you.”

Andy Signore:

I’m paying for you to collect it.

Christopher Melcher:

Yeah, yeah, you pay me all this money, and I’m like, “Oh, I can’t share it that with you.” Well, how can I not share it with you? You’re my client. I have a duty to you. And you know more than I do about the facts, and now you could be like, “Oh, if I saw that message, this would then unlock all this other information or inconsistencies,” but I can’t share it with you. It’s totally screwed up, interferes with the attorney-client relationship.

And the other thing that I’ve spoken out about these orders is who says that attorneys are so much more trustworthy than clients? Just go read the news. There’s a lot of attorneys who’ve gotten into trouble for all kinds of horrible stuff. Why is it that we’re saying, “Oh, we can trust an attorney with this information, but we can’t trust the client, the party who has not had these problems with violating the law”?

I hate, hate the order. I understand the reason for protection, but I think this goes way too far. And look, both sides will survive. They’ll deal with it. If there’s something that’s designated improperly and it’s really not that confidential, they’ll take it back to the court, they’ll strip off this protection. There’s this annoyance, but they’ll survive.

Andy Signore:

Well, that’s the thing, because I did get a sense when I listened to the hearing that Judge Lyman isn’t messing around. And as I’ve learned in the doc and talking to all you guys, federal court, you can’t really mess around. Is there a version of this where if Blake really does go and stamp everything attorney’s eyes only, which I imagine she’s going to try to overdo, could that ultimately affect her case and hurt her if the judge sees her overdoing it?

Costly Games Played in Discovery

Christopher Melcher: Yeah, these are the games that are played in what’s called discovery. First she’s going to say, “I’m not producing anything. Object.” Then they have to work together on it. And then she’ll say, “Fine, I’ll give you the information, but I’m marking it all attorney’s eyes only.”

Then Justin’s side’s got to go back and say, “Hey, some of this, I get it, yes, the medical record, sure, but the other information, no, we dispute that,” and they got to fight about that. If they can’t resolve it, only then does it go to the judge, and then the judge reviews it and says, yeah, who’s right or wrong, and then can sanction the attorneys or parties for overly designating it or not cooperating. But it’s the cost of doing business.

It’s like, okay, I got to pay $20,000 in sanctions, but I just delayed Justin from getting this information and making him spend $100,000 or more to get it. It’s a game that’s played, and some people were willing to pay that price to do it.

Andy Signore:

Yeah, it seems that way because Blake’s eyes is, oh, well, Justin’s got this billionaire who’s just backing, and they’re going to spend $100 million to stop me. Clearly she’s going to play the tactic to try to drain as much from that billionaire as she can. Do you suspect she is just going to stamp it? Is that a smart move on her part, right or wrong, of just legally, yeah, delay, delay, delay, stall, cost more money? Is that often what happens in these kind of cases?

Christopher Melcher:

Yes. And I suspect both sides are going to play that game. And that’s just inherent in the system, unfortunately. This is why cases go on so long, this is why they cost so much money, this is why rich and powerful people do better in court generally than the weaker. And so again, it’s inherent. It’s not like the judge is watching every email and phone call that goes on between counsel. There’s a lot of things that happen before it percolates up to the judge. And so yeah, like I say, this is all typical, it’s not unique to this lawsuit, but it’s going to be difficult for both parties going through it. But what I believe is that Justin’s got the upper hand. He’s got the initiative, he’s got the support behind him. And it’s Blake that, in my estimation, is looking for the exit, how to get out of this gracefully because she started something that really is now out of her control and is making her look really bad.

Andy Signore:

We talked about this in the doc, but just to end on the question, do you think they’re going to settle? Do you think there’s a version of this or do you think this is one of those types of cases where they’re so both dug in and set in their way of, “I’ve been wronged. I need an apology. I will not accept…” It’s not even about money, clearly; they both have that. Do you think they’re at that point where this is one of those cases that could go all the way to trial?

Will the Lively Defamation Lawsuit Settle?

Christopher Melcher: It might. I think with Blake, like I say, I think she’s looking for the door. She wants out of this thing is my guess. And she’s already inflicted her damage on Justin. If that’s what she was looking for, mission accomplished, she’s hurt this guy. I think she would just say, “Fine, run away, dismiss.”

But the problem is would Justin agree to that? And Justin, the people who have cared to follow the story see him probably in the right, and so maybe he’s got some level of indication, but I don’t know that it’s enough. He may want a retraction from Blake. I don’t know that he cares about some money, but he may want her to say, “Hey, these things are not true,” or some kind of statement that allows him to go forward without this tarnish on his reputation. I think that’s going to be the really difficult part to settle this case.

Andy Signore:

Yeah, in your experience, you do divorce cases all day long where everybody wants everything and they can’t get everything. And typically, I guess they just go down the middle and, “Okay, this is what you’re going to get.” But yeah, how does one negotiate this? If you’re Blake, and clearly Justin’s not doing anything without an apology, is there a legal suggestion you might offer to dangle to be like, “Well, do it this way”?

How can Baldoni & Lively move forward?

Christopher Melcher: Yeah, it all depends on where Justin’s at on it, but it could be some kind of statement here, an agreed statement that says, hey Blake, this is the way she felt when she made these allegations, but in retrospect, looking back at it, she sees Justin’s perspective and understands that he didn’t have these bad intentions. It was a little bit mistaken, although she still believes she was in the right when she made the statements. There might be some way of threading that needle.

It’s not going to be really acceptable to either side, but good enough to get them out of this. There might be some kind of statement like that that allows them both to move forward with their lives. Like I say, I don’t really think it’s an exchange of money thing that’s going to work here, it’s really going to be getting Justin’s reputation restored without Blake completely admitting that she lied. And so I think careful wording.

Andy Signore:

Well, you can reiterate too because a lot of fans go, “Oh no, Justin.” Because they yell at me even when I make that suggestion, that they need to find a way to shake hands. Sometimes that’s the greater good. That is really what’s good for the mental health and being of these people. Because this is an enormously expensive, taxing, stressful, emotionally draining experience. Just because you settle doesn’t mean you’re weak or you gave up or whatever. Sometimes you got to do it, right?

Having Your Day In Court

Christopher Melcher: Well, that’s right. And having your day in court, and I hear a lot of clients say that, is fine, but I suggest going and actually spending some time in court and seeing what other people’s day in court looks like. It is not satisfying. A lot of times it’s a circus. We have judges who are not qualified, or if they are, they’re not prepared or they just have horrible judgment, and so making decisions on limited information or we have a jury who’s really not informed.

The idea of going to court and getting justice is going to look a lot different when you actually go through and experience that. We’ll see if these parties can find peace. I think it’s a little bit early now; probably more in a few months from now after some of this stuff is shaken out and some of the attention perhaps has died down a little bit they can find a way to exit.

Andy Signore:

It’s going to be fascinating, and we’ll be here with you. And we got a documentary coming as well to really tell the truth of what happened, because things can change tomorrow with settlements, et cetera. You never know. Make sure you follow Christopher Melcher over on Twitter at @CA_Divorce.