Hollywood Legal Showdown: Blake Lively’s Publicist (Leslie Sloane) Cranks Up the Heat with Motion to Compel Justin Baldoni and Co. to Produce
Celebrity drama heads back to the courtroom as Sloane pushes the Wayfarer team to turn over their evidence of her wrongdoing.
Understanding Federal Discovery: The Basics
Before we get into the specific dispute between Sloane and the Wayfarer Parties, it’s important to understand what “federal discovery” actually means.
All of the rules are hyperlinked if you would like to look at the sources.
So WHAT Is Discovery?
Discovery is basically the phase in a lawsuit where both sides gather information from each other before trial.
Think of it like the legal version of fact-finding or information exchange, but with VERY specific rules.
In federal court, discovery is guided by a set of rules called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 26 through 37. They are also governed by the specific Court, and specific Judge’s rules.
The big picture idea comes from Rule 26(b)(1), which says:
Parties can get discovery about any non-privileged matter that’s relevant to any party’s claim or defense — and it has to be proportional to the needs of the case.
In short: if the information is relevant and not protected by privilege (like attorney-client communications), it’s generally fair game.
But it has to stay reasonable and not turn into a fishing expedition.
The Main Discovery Tools
Federal discovery gives lawyers a toolbox, and here’s what’s inside:
Written questions one party sends to the other.
The receiving side has to answer in writing, under oath.
You can only send these to people in the lawsuit, not outsiders.
You’re limited to 25 questions, counting sub-questions (lawyers try to take advantage of the sub-parts sometimes).
Answers are due within 30 days.
A formal request for documents, emails, text messages, or even physical objects.
Can also include asking to inspect a place or piece of property.
Again, this is only between parties in the case (non-party subpoenas are different).
They have 30 days to respond.
This is when lawyers question a witness under oath, face-to-face, usually with a court reporter typing everything up.
Depositions can be taken from both parties and non-parties (people or companies not named in the lawsuit).
They typically last up to 7 hours per person.
The side taking the deposition has to give “reasonable notice,” so it can’t be a last-minute ambush.
These are written requests asking the other side to admit or deny specific facts or legal points. These typically come AFTER most of discovery.
If you ignore them or miss the 30-day deadline, the court can treat the facts as admitted.
This tool helps narrow down what the parties actually disagree about before trial.
Physical and Mental Examinations (Rule 35)
If a party’s physical or mental condition is important to the case, the court can order them to undergo an exam.
This requires a formal court order and doesn’t come up in most routine lawsuits.
Mandatory Disclosures (Before the Tools Come Out)
Even before the parties start using these tools, they’re required to exchange some basic information under Rule 26(a), called Initial Disclosures. This helps legal teams figure out what tools to be used for what.
This includes:
Names of people likely to have relevant information.
Descriptions or copies of documents, emails, or other evidence they may use.
Calculations of damages (how much they’re claiming they’re owed).
Any insurance policies that might cover part of the claim.
Why Does This Matter?
Understanding these basics gives you the background you need to follow what’s happening in this dispute. When you hear about motions to compel, objections, or arguments over discovery, they all trace back to this structured process, where each side is trying to get the information they need to prove their case.
Now … the Competing Motions
First, let’s look at what Sloane’s team is arguing and why they say they need the court’s help to get information. Then, we’ll break down how the Wayfarer Parties (including Justin Baldoni) push back and explain why they believe Sloane is asking for too much, too soon.
The Foundation of this Motion?
Leslie Sloane's motion to compel is brought "pursuant to Individual Rule 4.C," which is a local rule for the Southern District of New York that establishes the procedure for requesting court intervention in discovery disputes.
The motion specifically targets five discovery requests:
Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7.
Interrogatory No. 3
Asks the Wayfarer Parties to identify each person with whom Sloane allegedly communicated regarding them. This is fundamental in a defamation case - you need to know who supposedly heard the allegedly defamatory statements.
Interrogatories 4, 5, and 7
These seek to identify:
Each defamatory statement Sloane allegedly made (No. 4)
Each "malicious story portraying Baldoni as a sexual predator" (No. 5)
Each "story critical of Baldoni, including that Baldoni was a sexual predator" (No. 7)
The motion notes that during meet-and-confer discussions, the Wayfarer Parties' counsel "could not even confirm whether the Wayfarer Parties are alleging that Ms. Sloane ever used the words 'sexual predator' or 'sexual assault.'"
Request for Production No. 32: The "Put Up or Shut Up" Demand
This request seeks documents the Wayfarer Parties "intend to rely on in drafting a further amended complaint." The motion reveals that the Wayfarer Parties have repeatedly claimed - both in court filings and to the press - that they have "obtained additional information about the Sloane Parties' activities."
The motion essentially calls their bluff, suggesting these claims might be empty threats designed to pressure Sloane.
Why is this information relevant?
They do a good job setting the stage: Sloane’s team is telling the court that they’ve been trying for months to get basic information from Wayfarer, but Wayfarer has dodged or given vague answers.
They’re accusing Wayfarer of:
Not clearly saying what exactly Sloane supposedly said that was defamatory or put them in a “false light”
Not explaining when, where, or how these things were supposedly said, and
Not identifying who Sloane supposedly said these things to.
Basically: You’re accusing her of serious stuff, but you won’t tell us the details that’s not fair.
What’s the backstory?
Sloane’s lawyers point out that Wayfarer should have already spelled this out when they filed their lawsuit (that’s what complaints are supposed to do, explain why you’re suing). But instead, they say the Wayfarer side stayed very vague.
They say that even in their formal legal responses, Wayfarer only gave broad claims like:
We know and allege that Sloane called Baldoni a sexual predator and spread false stories to the Daily Mail.
But Sloane’s lawyers point out something really sharp here:
In an earlier lawsuit Wayfarer filed in California (against The New York Times), Wayfarer themselves included a screenshot from the Daily Mail reporter that seemingly admits that Sloane never said anything about sexual assault.
“I had many conversations with her about Blake and never once did she say anything about sexual assault. 1 had a three-way call with her and Melissa and she never said anything about it then either.”
That’s a huge contradiction — and Sloane’s team is using it to argue:
You can’t accuse us of something you’ve already submitted evidence doesn’t exist!
Why does this matter for Sloane?
Sloane flat-out denies ever calling Baldoni a sexual predator or accusing him of assault. But here’s the key point:
If she doesn’t know exactly what Wayfarer claims she said, or who she supposedly said it to, she can’t effectively defend herself.
In legal terms, this is about due process and fairness: you have the right to know what you’re being accused of so you can prepare a defense.
The Core Problem: Defamation Without Specifics
The motion highlights a fundamental legal paradox: the Wayfarer Parties have filed defamation and false light claims against Sloane but refuse to specify:
What statements were allegedly made
When or how these statements occurred
To whom these statements were made
This creates an impossible situation for Sloane to mount a defense.
Imagine being charged with a crime but the prosecutor won't tell you what crime you allegedly committed. Or when? Or how?
The Procedural Chess Match: Local Civil Rule 33.3
Sloane’s team says the Wayfarer Parties are using Local Civil Rule 33.3 as a shield to avoid answering these interrogatories. This rule limits the types of questions that can be asked early in litigation to specific categories like:
Names of witnesses with knowledge
Computation of damages
Existence and location of documents
Information of a similar nature
However, Sloane's motion reveals two critical flaws in this defensive strategy:
1. Waiver Through Untimely Objection: The Wayfarer Parties didn't raise this Rule 33.3 objection in their initial written responses. Federal procedure operates on strict timelines, missing an objection in your initial response typically means you've waived the right to raise it later. The motion cites specific case law confirming this principle.
2. The Interrogatories Actually Comply with Rule 33.3: The motion argues that the requested information falls within Rule 33.3's permitted categories, particularly "names of witnesses with knowledge" and "information of a similar nature."
The Nuclear Option: Rule 11 Implications
The motion raises the idea that the Wayfarer Parties may lack a "Rule 11 basis" for their claims. Rule 11 requires attorneys to certify that claims have factual support and are not filed for improper purposes. By suggesting the Wayfarer Parties have no Rule 11 basis, Sloane's team is essentially accusing them of filing unsupported claims. This is serious.
Another big revelation? The Alleged Wiretapping Violation
In a footnote, the motion accuses Melissa Nathan of "surreptitiously listen[ing] to Ms. Sloane's phone calls in violation of California's wiretapping statute."
The evidence comes from the same Daily Mail reporter message, describing "a three-way call with her and Melissa" where Sloane apparently never knew Melissa was listening. Under California law, all parties must consent to having their calls recorded or monitored.
The Strategic Objectives of This Motion
This motion serves several strategic purposes:
Forcing Clarification: Attempts to compel the Wayfarer Parties to specify exactly what they're accusing Sloane of saying.
Creating a Paper Trail: Establishes on the court record the opposition's inability or unwillingness to provide basic information.
Setting Up Sanctions: If granted and the Wayfarer Parties still cannot provide specific allegations, it creates grounds for Rule 37 sanctions and potentially attorney's fees.
Testing the Strength of Claims: If no specific defamatory statements can be identified, it may lead to dismissal of these claims.
Exposing Potential Legal Violations: Brings attention to possible illegal wiretapping, which could have serious consequences for the other side.
The Legal Efficiency Argument
The motion emphasizes that interrogatories are "a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition." This is particularly relevant given:
The publicity surrounding this case
The large number of articles written about it
The need to target discovery requests efficiently
Without knowing which specific statements or articles are allegedly defamatory, Sloane would face the impossible task of reviewing every statement she's ever made and guess which ones are being challenged.
The Bottom Line
This motion to compel represents a pressure point in the case. If the Wayfarer Parties truly have specific allegations against Sloane, this motion forces them to articulate those claims clearly.
The motion's effectiveness lies in its simplicity: prove what you claim, or face the consequences of making unsupported allegations in federal court.
Switching Sides - What does Justin Baldoni’s team say?
Now that we understand Sloane’s side, let’s turn to how the Wayfarer Parties respond.
Wayfarer’s lawyers push back hard, arguing that Sloane already knows exactly what she’s accused of and that her motion isn’t really about getting fair discovery it’s about pressuring the court and trying to undermine their claims before the judge rules on dismissing the case.
Here’s how they lay out their side.
Sloane already knows what she’s accused of
Wayfarer says Sloane’s whole motion is based on a false idea, that she doesn’t know why she’s being sued.
They point to their Amended Complaint, where they say they already spelled out their claims:
They say Sloane allegedly told reporters (including the New York Times) that Baldoni is a sexual predator who assaulted Lively.
They claim Sloane said Baldoni retaliated against Lively for reporting misconduct.
Sloane allegedly gave the Daily Mail dismissive statements like “You have it all wrong” but then secretly fed them negative stories about Baldoni, such as “the whole cast hates him.”
Wayfarer is arguing they’ve been clear enough and that Sloane has notice of the accusations, so she doesn’t need more details now.
Here’s more about the specific allegations
Wayfarer doubles down, pointing out that:
Sloane allegedly told The New York Times that Wayfarer covered up or allowed sexual misconduct and retaliated against Lively.
Sloane supposedly fed the press a “false and damning” story about Wayfarer orchestrating a PR smear campaign as revenge.
👉 Why it matters: Wayfarer is saying they already described not just the statements but also where they were made (to the press) and why they matter (to harm Wayfarer and Baldoni).
Interrogatory No. 3 is too broad
They say Sloane asked: “Tell us everyone we allegedly talked to about Wayfarer.”
Wayfarer pushes back, saying:
That request is too broad it asks for anyone they talked to, not just people relevant to the case.
Under court rules (Local Civil Rule 33.3), discovery questions need to focus on people with relevant knowledge, not just anyone.
They also point out that they’ve already provided an initial list of 150+ individuals and entities, and they argue that’s enough for now.
Wayfarer is saying Sloane is overreaching and fishing for information beyond what the rules allow (it sounds like Sloane did agree to limit this in their meet and confer).
We didn’t waive our objections.
Sloane argued that Wayfarer gave up its right to object by not following the proper procedure.
Wayfarer says:
Nope, we raised objections properly and cited the rule.
They say the cases Sloane relies on don’t apply because those were situations where the parties didn’t file objections correctly or missed deadlines.
Wayfarer is defending their procedural moves, saying they’re playing by the book.
Interrogatories 4, 5, 7 are improper
Sloane asked Wayfarer to identify:
Each defamatory statement
Each “malicious story” calling Baldoni a sexual predator
Each critical story about Baldoni
Wayfarer says:
These are contention interrogatories… basically, requests asking the other side to lay out all their arguments in detail, which usually aren’t allowed at this early stage.
They argue the complaint already lays out the key allegations, so Sloane should know what they’re being accused of.
They also throw in a sharp point: If Sloane knows what she said, she shouldn’t need us to spell it out, she knows what’s defamatory.
Wayfarer is saying they’ve done their part, and Sloane can’t use discovery to force them to map out their entire case prematurely.
“Request for Production No. 32 is premature”
Sloane asked for:
Any documents Wayfarer plans to use in drafting a second amended complaint (which hasn’t been filed yet).
Wayfarer’s response:
That’s premature, you can’t ask for documents about something that doesn’t yet exist.
Plus, anything related to drafting legal documents is likely protected by attorney-client privilege or work product rules.
They say if they ever file another complaint, they’ll produce relevant, non-privileged documents.
Wayfarer is protecting its legal strategy and saying Sloane is jumping the gun.
This is really about Sloane’s motion to dismiss
Wayfarer accuses Sloane of having a hidden agenda:
They claim Sloane’s real goal is to re-argue her motion to dismiss the case and use discovery as a backdoor to pressure the court.
Wayfarer points out that the judge already denied Sloane’s request to pause discovery, so they think this motion is just an attempt to sidestep that loss.
Wayfarer is framing Sloane’s motion as strategic posturing, not a genuine need for information.
Wayfarer’s overall message to the court:
We’ve already explained what we’re accusing Sloane of, she’s just trying to push us to lay out our full legal playbook early, which the rules don’t require. And by the way, this is really about her trying to weaken our case before the judge rules on dismissing it.
Likely Outcome: A Partial Win for Sloane — but not a full one.
*If Judge Liman does not send them back to meet and confer further on this.
Here’s why:
Sloane has a strong point on needing details
In defamation and false light cases, the plaintiff (Wayfarer/Justin Baldoni on these claims) is usually required to identify the specific statements they claim were defamatory, it’s not enough to say “you said bad things about us.” Courts generally require a clear roadmap of what’s being claimed so the defendant (Sloane) can prepare a defense.
Judges don’t like “hide-the-ball” tactics. On this point, Sloane’s demand for clearer details is reasonable and aligns with the principles of fair notice.
Wayfarer’s defense on “overbreadth” has some weight
Wayfarer is correct that Sloane’s Interrogatory No. 3 was initially very broad, asking for everyone Sloane ever communicated with about Wayfarer could sweep in irrelevant or privileged communications. It does sound like that has been limited in meet and confers, so this might be moot.
And their objection under Local Civil Rule 33.3 (which limits early interrogatories) is legitimate. Judges are often cautious about discovery overreach.
Wayfarer’s procedural arguments are a mixed bag
Wayfarer argues they properly objected and that Sloane is trying to prematurely map out their legal arguments. But here’s the problem: you can’t bring a defamation claim and then refuse to identify the allegedly defamatory statements. So even if some interrogatories were imperfectly drafted or framed as “contention interrogatories,” the court may still compel more precise responses.
The “Request for Production No. 32” probably fails for Sloane
Sloane’s attempt to force Wayfarer to hand over documents they might use in a future (not-yet-filed) amended complaint is premature. Wayfarer’s privilege and work product arguments are solid here, and the court will likely deny this part of Sloane’s motion.
I would predict:
Sloane will likely win some limited relief, the judge may order Wayfarer to identify key defamatory statements and clarify basic allegations.
Wayfarer will likely succeed in limiting the scope of Interrogatory No. 3 and avoiding premature production of documents tied to a possible amended complaint.
TLDR: This will probably end in a “split decision” where neither side gets everything they want. The court will push Wayfarer to be clearer but protect them from overly broad or premature demands.
Thank you very much MJ! Like always it was very informative and you made it so easy to understand ❤️
Love it! And agree with your points! The last is broad. Let’s see what liman says. What is the window he replies in?