A federal judge on Thursday approved a request for Blake Lively to limit certain sensitive information during the “end with us” lawsuit against her, and co-star Justin Baldoni.
Lively has sued Baldoni for sexual harassment and retaliation, while Baldoni sued her and her husband Ryan Reynolds for defamation.
More from diversity
Judge Lewis Liman agreed on Thursday to Lively’s request to limit certain discovery materials to “lawyer-only eyes.” Given the case involves celebrities and their public relations staff, Lively’s attorneys warn that some information could be leaked if the attorneys share it with clients.
Information that only attorneys can see includes “trade secrets” such as business and marketing plans and ideas for upcoming creative projects. It also includes security measures for customers, medical information, and “highly personal and intimate information about third parties.”
“These cases involve business competitors and allegations of sexual harm,” the judge wrote. “The discovery must include confidential and sensitive business and personal information. Disclosures are very risky.”
The judge noted that even if sensitive information is not leaked to the press, it is easy to “gossip and allusion to people in a tight art community that can cause harm to one or the other”.
Baldoni’s attorneys agree that sensitive information should be kept confidential, but objected to the idea that attorneys cannot share with clients. They believe that the additional layer of confidentiality will make the lawsuit even more troublesome, and that the parties inevitably return to the judges against each other’s confidentiality names.
Liman didn’t grant everything Lively’s attorneys requested, noting that her requirement to limit any substance that “can” cause certain harm is “very extensive”. The judge narrowed the provision, which included substances that were “very likely” to cause “significant” harm.
The judge argued that an increase in the level of secrets would make the discovery process more effective.
“The limited moving direction AEO provisions show good reasons and show that entering such provisions is now critical to the impartial and rapid (if not necessarily “cheap”) determination of the case,” he wrote.
At a hearing last week, the judge also noted that the case would inherently involve the disclosure of sensitive and destructive information about the parties, assuming the advancement of that information.
“If you sue high-profile people in this industry, it will be taken over by the media,” he said. “Things that are highly relevant will eventually be disclosed.”
The lively spokesperson praised the decision.
“Today, the court rejected the Wayfarer party objection and entered the protection needed to ensure the free flow of materials found without any witnesses intimidating or harming the safety of any individual,” the spokesperson said. “With the order, Ms. Lively will move forward in the discovery process to obtain more evidence of her claim in court.”
The best variety
Sign up for Variety’s newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
