Blake Lively Gets DENIED! Taylor Swift Won’t Be Pleased!!! Judge In The Justin Baldoni Case Ordered:

Blake Lively Gets DENIED! Taylor Swift Won’t Be Pleased!!! Judge In The Justin Baldoni Case Ordered:

this just in the new bestie of Taylor Swift’s former bestie has has issued a fourpage ruling and yes it has to do with Taylor Swift hello my friend it is Perez the queen of all media the original influencer and your number one source for everything it ends with us Saga as I have shared with you all high school graduate Blake Lively recently asked the judge for a protective order as well as trying to make sure that none of her texts or emails with Taylor Swift were entered into the court they were subpoenaed by team Baldon Wayfairer but she made an argument as to why she should not have to hand that over and if she would have to hand it over she was requesting a protective order justin and his crew filed a motion in opposition of the protective order and a cross motion to compel the Taylor Swift of it all i’ve covered this i explained the logic behind each argument and now the judge is having his say lyman explains quote Blake Lively moves for a protective order relieving her from producing documents responsive to requests numbered 108 and 109 in the requests for production served by the Wayfairer parties on February 21st 2025 which request all documents and communications relating to or reflecting Lively’s communications with Taylor Swift relating to the film or the action the Wayfair parties oppose the motion and cross move for an order compelling Lively to produce documents responsive to these requests and certain other requests for production lively moves to file a reply to the opposition and cross motion docket number 354 the motion to file a reply is granted lively’s motion for a protective order is denied and the wayfairer party’s cross motion for an order to compel is denied so it’s a winwin and the judge explains his reasoning the federal rules of civil procedure provide for broad discovery of information for the purpose of assisting in the preparation and trial or the settlement of litigated disputes however a court may limit discovery if the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative irrelevant or unduly burdensome lively relies on the fact that the wayfairer parties previously attempted to subpoena Swift then withdrew the subpoena and made public statements that they had everything that they needed pause baldoni and the Wayfair parties never made those public statements that was an allegation that she erroneously attributed to them it was merely a source in a Daily Mail article the judge continues “She accordingly argues that either the Wayfairer parties never needed communications between Swift and Lively in which case the Swift subpoena is irrelevant or the Wayfairer parties have already received the communications in which case the Swift request for production are duplicative each of these three arguments is unavailing.” For those of you who weren’t good at your SATs that’s a big word it means achieving little or nothing ineffective translation: Latigious Lively’s lawyers didn’t lawyer well enough the judge continues “The wayfairer parties have not yet received any communications between Lively and Swift so the request to Lively is not duplicative.” And the Swifts Ah yes yes yes yes yes the judge says the swift subpoena is relevant the requests for production are relevant line sorry lively herself has identified Swift as someone likely to have knowledge about complaints or discussions regarding the working environment on the set of it ends with us lively properly notes that identification of a party in initial disclosures does not necessarily entail that all communications with that party are relevant to the claims and defenses in the case however the swift requests for production are limited to communications about the film or about the action lively alleges that Baldoni and Heath harassed her in numerous ways during work on It Ends With Us that her concerns about their behavior began early in the pre-production process and that she expressed these concerns in contemporaneous messages this is the most I think the judge has spoken about Taylor Swift thus far he goes on to say “Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working environment of the film among other issues the requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims s pause the only way now to keep Taylor Swift out of it is if team Baldon chooses to withdraw this subpoena i still don’t understand really why they withdrew the subpoena against Taylor maybe because that was duplicative they’re getting it this way and they just subpoenaed her for show perhaps listen I like to be honest and keep it real part of lawyering is showmanship the judge continues “Lively’s motion is rooted in the broader concern that the Wayfairer parties are using demands for communications with Swift not to obtain information relevant to claims and defenses in court i just said this oh you don’t call me Pereza Thomas for nothing i just said this.” Lively’s motion is rooted in the broader concern that the Wayfair parties are using demands for communications with Swift not to obtain information relevant to claims and defenses in court but to prop up a public relations narrative outside of court probably but this concern Oh I love this i love reading everything oh I’m too invested this is better than a novel but this concern the PR of it all does not justify denying the wayfairer parties relevant discovery if the issue is that the Wayfairer parties may leak the requested communications to the press this concern is addressed by the protective order issued by the court that order was designed precisely to ensure that parties may share sensitive information that may be only tangentially related to the underlying cause of action without fear it will be leaked to the press if the issue is rather that the fact of the request itself has been used as part of a public relations narrative this does not mean the request is irrelevant a motion or request may be and in this case often has been both a legitimate litigation tactic and an attempt to maneuver in the broader court of public opinion given that the lively parties have not shown the information is irrelevant or its production would be unduly burdensome the claim the wayfairer parties have dramaticized the request in the press does not justify a protective order lively’s motion for protective order is denied the judge then goes on to say “The Wayfairer party’s cross motion is also denied.” The Wayfairer Party seek to compel Lively to produce documents concerning her allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation her communications with Sony and WME concerning the same and her claims for economic damage the documents were demanded on February 21st and Lively agreed on March 24th to rolling production of the documents lively states that she has agreed to produce the documents except the communications with Swift and is on track for substantial completion by July 1st the deadline set by the court lively has proposed to the Wayfairer parties that she will produce all documents in the requested categories by the end of this week if Wayfairer produce all video footage related to the film and full unredacted versions of communications exerted in the Wayfairer party’s amended complaint there is no reason for the court to order Lively to expedite production when the Wayf Farer parties have refused to do so the motion for a protective order is denied the cross motion to compel is denied i’m happy with this you thoughts let’s discuss everything in the comments section

🤪 #BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni #TaylorSwift

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaHE2Xd6bhJbfM7T1TAmI9Q/join

Listen to The Perez Hilton Podcast with Chris Booker HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com

Sign up for my Patreon and get lots of exclusive content at http://Patreon.com/PerezHilton

Follow Me!
MAIN CHANNEL: http://youtube.com/PerezHilton
WEBSITE: http://PerezHilton.com
PEREZ’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/PerezHilton
GET A PERSONALIZED VIDEO FROM ME HERE: https://www.cameo.com/perezhilton
LISTEN TO MY PODCAST HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com
WEBSITE’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/ThePerezHilton

Check out my merch: http://BuyPopStuff.com

About Perez Hilton:
The original influencer, Perez Hilton founded and oversees one of the most iconic websites ever. In addition to his eponymous blog, he is the host of a very successful podcast, has a loyal following across two YouTube channels, has written four books, has acted in countless TV shows and films – as well as the stage. And, most importantly, he is the proud father of three happy and thriving kids and an adult child, his mother. Perez is one of the most sought after commentators and your best friend!

Blake Lively Gets DENIED! And Taylor Swift Will Not Be Pleased!!! The Judge In The Justin Baldoni Case Ordered:

Perez Hilton
https://www.youtube.com/perezhilton