The high-profile legal battle between Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios (led by Justin Baldoni) has taken yet another dramatic turn. While the press focuses on the sensational allegations, today we're looking at procedure that has turned into a fascinating aspect of the case: the fight over who gets to see what evidence.
The Battle for Confidentiality
At the center of this fight is a dispute over a "protective order"…
This is the legal mechanism that determines how sensitive information will be handled during the discovery phase. Both sides agree some protection is needed, but they're fighting over just how restrictive those protections should be.
Blake Lively's team wants an "Attorney's Eyes Only" (AEO) designation for certain materials, which would prevent even Justin Baldoni himself from seeing the most sensitive information. Only the attorneys would have access.
Justin Baldoni/Wayfarer Studios, on the other hand, argues this extra protection is unnecessary and hypocritical given how public Lively has already been with her allegations.
Round 1: Lively's Opening Salvo (Filed on February 20)
Lively's legal team made a compelling case for heightened protections by documenting:
Online harassment including "pornographic trolling" so severe that Meta publicly condemned it
Threats to witnesses, including one who received messages threatening sexual assault and murder of family members
The need for extra protection in sexual harassment cases
Specific vulnerabilities related to entertainment industry information
They backed these claims with legal precedent showing judges have granted similar protections in comparable cases.
Round 2: Wayfarer's Counter-Attack (Filed February 25)
Wayfarer's team responded with a strategy that essentially called out Lively for alleged hypocrisy:
They highlighted how Lively had "actively publicized and litigated her claims in the media"
Pointed to her 138-page, 500-paragraph complaint that already details the alleged harassment
Referenced statements from Lively's representatives to the press
Even mentioned Ryan Reynolds making a joke about the case on SNL's 50th Anniversary Special
Argued the standard protective order provides sufficient protection
The subtext was clear: You can't claim privacy concerns when you've already gone public with so much.
Round 3: Lively's Rapid Counterpunch (Filed February 25)
In a FAST response filed the same day, Lively's team refocused the argument on three key points:
Third-party protection: They argued that witnesses and other third parties need special protection, especially given the documented threats.
Procedural failures: They claimed Wayfarer's position makes the standard conferral process pointless, since Wayfarer has already stated Lively "lacks a 'good faith' belief that there is any information" deserving protection.
Media manipulation: In perhaps their most explosive allegation, they suggested Wayfarer's team was coordinating with "online content creators" (noting at least one is a client of Wayfarer's counsel) to spread misleading narratives about the case.
They included a particularly pointed rebuke: "Leaving aside the callous disregard and disrespect for a woman advocating for the most basic workplace protections against sexual harassment..."
What's Really at Stake Here
This procedural battle reveals deeper tensions in how our legal system handles sexual harassment claims in the era of #MeToo:
Can someone be both a public advocate against harassment while maintaining privacy in court?
Does going public with allegations waive all privacy protections?
Should alleged harassment victims have to share sensitive information directly with their alleged harassers?
How do we balance witness protection against a defendant's right to review evidence?
The judge's decision on this seemingly technical issue will set the tone.
Lively's team? Focuses on protection, safety, and the broader implications for harassment victims
Wayfarer's team? Emphasizes inconsistency, publicity, and questions of motive
Both sides attempt to control what the dispute is "really about"…
What do you think?
What Happens Next
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York will now have to decide whether to grant the standard protective order or the enhanced version with AEO provisions.
Share this post