Blake Lively Is Still Going After Me – Hard! | Perez Hilton

Blake Lively Is Still Going After Me – Hard! | Perez Hilton

This video sucks. This video is going to suck. Hello my frame. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, and your number one source for everything it ends with us saga. I’m tired. I’m tired. I’m spent. I want to go back to my normal life. I naively thought that by now the middle-aged menace would have withdrawn her subpoena against me because on Monday of this week she received any communications between me and the wayfairer defendants dot dot dot if they exist. I have never confirmed or denied that I have spoken to any of the Wayfairer defendants. But if communications exist, then there’s no need to continue with the subpoena against me. And also, as I’ve said before, if communications between me and the Wayfairer defendants exists and it’s some smoking gun or would hurt their case, I would think the Wayfair defendants and Steve Sorrowitz, a billionaire, would have maybe figured out a way for me to have a lawyer and paid for it. But no, they didn’t. And I’m still handling all of this by myself. But hopefully that will change soon. I have had some conversations and I’m cautiously optimistic that I might be able to figure out some legal help this week. But until then, and I hope to make an announcement soon if if God blesses me with that. Until then, it’s me and her team of very expensive lawyers. All right. As I previously shared with you all, last Friday I filed a motion in Nevada asking a lot. I am fighting the subpoena superstar here in Las Vegas, the correct venue to litigate issues with her overly broad, duplicative, unduly burdensome, and I think legally unsound subpoena that is asking me to unmask my sources and give her my unpublished journalistic material. All of which is privileged and protected by both state and federal law. Basically, I wanted and I need the judge to explain in writing his decisions last week at the hearing that we had in person on September the 2nd. At that hearing, the judge said that he would not be applying Nevada law in Nevada, which is not only infuriating, but also does not make sense whatsoever because repeatedly Cherokee Khesi argued that California law should be applied in New York and Judge Lyman applied California law in New York in his federal court. Even as recently as this week, when seeking damages against Justin Baldon in trying to recoup her attorney’s fees, she cited California law. So, I think it is only fair, equal, and just that Nevada law apply here in Nevada. But the judge disagreed, and I just want to know why. He didn’t explain why to me. So, in my motion from last week on Friday, I asked him to explain why. And I’m dumb. I’m also not a lawyer. I need to know why this judge needs to know the names of my sources. The very same thing that I’m trying to protect. The very same thing that is privileged. I even told the judge in chambers, yo. I didn’t say yo, but I said your honor, I’ll give you all the communications redacted, meaning you can see what was said, just not the names of my sources. That didn’t fly with him. And he could not or did not explain to me why he needs to know the names. So, in my motion from Friday, I said, “Please also explain to me in writing why you need that.” And I said, “Let’s put a pin on it. Let’s pause things until I get this needed clarification that I reserve my objections to because I’m probably going to be appealing this if the motion to quash that I filed is not granted in full.” And now, butthole Blake has responded to that motion of mine. I am reading it live for the first time. God, so over it. Let’s see what they have to say. Response to third party Perez Hilton’s motion for clarification. Respondent and crossmovement Blake Lively respectfully files this response to the motion for clarification and for a protective protocol governing any inc camera submission, assertion of reporters privilege, request for written explanation regarding applicable law, and request for stay pending resolution filed by nonparty Mario Armando Landeda Jr. Miss Lively takes no position on Mr. Hilton’s request that the court issue a written opinion memorializing its orders at the September 2nd, 2025 hearing, but notes that oral orders are entitled to the same force and effect as an order reduced to writing. Great. Explain it to me. I think I deserve that. And so does the public. It should be stated for everyone the reasoning for these decisions, these rulings. Miss Lively files this response in opposition to Mr. Hilton’s following three requests. One, permission to withhold from the court. They put in bold and italics. Permission to withhold from the court the identity of the individuals with whom he is seeking to withhold communications. Two, a stay of his obligation to submit cost estimates from eiscocovery vendors until after resolution of the motion. Pause. I did that anyways. Even though I was looking for a pause, I went ahead and gave the judge what he asked me to do. He wanted me to get three estimates, three proposals from forensic data retrieval experts who would potentially take my digital world, all of the places that I have my communications and information stored and extract everything that the subpoena is asking for. So, I did that on Monday as requested. But their response today continues saying, “Three,” they’re objecting to this as well. In ordering that the court will not disclose any material submitted exparte to Miss Lively, meaning without her there. If I had another in camera review with just me and the judge. For the reasons discussed below, the court should reject all three remedies as devoid of legal support. Jesus Christ. Relevant procedural history. The court held a hearing on August 28th, 2025 on Mr. Hilton’s motion to quash the subpoena. Miss Lively served on him pursuant to rule 45 of the federal rules of civil procedure and Miss Lively’s cross motion to transfer or for an order compelling Mr. Hilton’s compliance. The court deferred a ruling on the motion to quash and crossmotion during the August 28th hearing pending a determination from the district judge overseeing the underlying litigation as to whether the Southern District of New York has jurisdiction over Mr. Hilton. After that court found it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the subpoena. This court denied the transfer requested in Miss Lively’s cross motion and ordered the parties to appear for a motion hearing on September 2nd, 2025. The court also ordered Mr. Hilton to come prepared with a list of materials covered by the subpoena that can be presented to the court for exparte in camera review and which describes the type, format and volume of this information. I did that. The court also ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing regarding whether and how privileges under the federal common law, including but not limited to the qualified reporter privilege, apply to this information by Tuesday, the 2nd of September at 9:00 a.m. The afternoon of August 29th, 2025, Mr. Hilton submitted his supplemental brief confirming I did not this is not true confirming his view that the federal qualified reporters privilege applies and that Nevada’s journalist privilege is not binding but provides additional persuasive authority. Pause. I repeatedly stated then and before and after and in person in court that Nevada law should apply. That the the Nevada shield law which offers absolute protection not qualified should be applied and this ridic I mean actually this ridiculousness should be over already. Ah, Jesus. On September 2nd, 2025, Miss Lively filed a supplemental brief as ordered by the court explaining why federal common law as opposed to Nevada law applies to the question of privileges because the underlying litigation includes a claim pursuant to federal law. At the beginning of the hearing on September 2nd, 2025, the court entered an oral order, September 2nd order, holding that the federal common law applied to the question of whether Mr. Hilton is entitled to assert a reporter’s privilege and if so, whether it is overcome due to its qualified nature. The court explained that the federal common law applies pursuant to rule 501 of the federal rules of evidence because the underlying litigation includes a claim rooted in federal law. There are two interesting footnotes here. One says, “Mr. Hilton claims to maintain all objections notwithstanding that he agreed to the application of the federal common law.” No, I did not. I did not. And oh god. Footnote three says, “Miss Lively disagrees with Mr. Hilton’s claim that the court did not offer an explanation for his holding.” The court did not offer an explanation. Oh, good. The court closed the courtroom to hold an exparte conversation with Mr. Hilton during the hearing regarding the privilege log he prepared. Miss Lively reserved rights relating to the exparte conversation, including to the withholding of any privilege log provided to the court exparte on that day or in the future. After the exparte conversation, the court ordered Mr. Hilton to submit to the court by Monday, September 8th, 2025 three estimates from eiscocovery vendors for the cost of engaging in a forensic collection of all the repositories of information likely to contain responsive information. The court also recommended that council for Miss Lively provide Mr. Hilton with a list of suggested attributes of a credible eiscocovery vendor which they provided by email on September 4th, 2025 along with providing names of specific reputable eiscocovery vendors. Like I’m going to use their vendors or or whom they recommend. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The court also suggested that council for Miss Lively provide search terms to Mr. Hilton, which are attached hereto under seal. Then they get into the nittygritty. The court should reject Mr. Hilton’s request to permit him to file a coded privilege log whereby he withholds the identities of his sources from the court. Mr. Hilton does not cite any authority in support of his request to deprive the court and only the court of this information, including his assertion that courts routinely accept coded privilege logs that omit names. Nor is Miss Lively aware of any authority that empowers a thirdparty litigant to redact information submitted to a court in an exparte and in camera capacity. Can can we just like fasttrack this? Let’s just let’s just fast track this so I can appeal it and then let’s fasttrack the appeal. I just want to be done with this. But I will I’m gonna keep on. I’m not gonna stop. I will keep I’m gonna stay fighting. I’m tired. But I have an indomitable spirit. You can kick me. You can break me. But you can’t destroy me. I will put my pieces back together again. God. They continue, to the contrary, district courts act within their rights to require the unredacted submission of material for such review. I don’t trust the thing they say because they’ve lied and misrepresented the truth over and over and over again. It is not clear how the court could assess whether the privilege is overcome including for example the materiality of the information or the availability from other sources if Mr. Hilton does not provide details about from whom he received the information. For example, whether Mr. Hilton communicated with one of the defendants in the underlying litigation or a defendant’s agent, including, for example, Brian Freriedman, is essential information when considering whether Miss Lively has demonstrated the three factors that courts consider when piercing the privilege. Mr. Hilton also provides no legal support for his invented three-step staged plan of exparte review and such a process would add additionally unnecessary layers of delay and review. Maybe chat GPT had me had me going in the wrong direction here. Dad, I don’t know. It sounded sensible to me, you know, like first the court gets my redacted names and or, you know, source names, blah blah blah. I’m doing my best here, people. I’m not a lawyer. I’m doing my best going up against Goliath. And I shouldn’t have had to spend by now at least $75,000 to do what’s right and protect my sources. The justice system in this country is so backwards so much of the time. There’s a little footnote here after that about the invented process. It says, “Mr. Hilton appears able and willing to submit the content of his communications to the court and takes issue solely with the disclosure of names.” Yeah. Yes. That’s what’s important. Protecting my sources. If Mr. Hilton is able and does not oppose the submission of a sample of underlying communications. Miss Lively submits that doing so would facilitate the court’s review and is in keeping with how courts often handle in camera review. I told that to the judge in camera. He didn’t want that. I literally said, “Your honor, wouldn’t it be more helpful for you to know what was actually said in these communications? Like, couldn’t you determine privilege easier if you know what was freaking said? Like, it doesn’t matter who told me. I’m claiming it’s all privileged.” They continue. Mr. Hilton also asks this court to stay or hold in obeyance any further obligations until the court resolves the motion. Mr. Hilton does not because he cannot provide any factual or legal support for delaying the process established by the court. The September 2nd order does not require the disclosure of any of Mr. Hilton’s sources and there is no reason why the process laid out by the court cannot proceed a pace while the motion is under review. They knew because they got the filing that I already gave the judge what he asked of me even after I filed this motion. Not very good lawyering. They should have updated this filing of theirs. Yeah. Boys Schiller here in Las Vegas, Richard Pocker. I’m losing my mind. I’m going bananas. And I feel like my poor little mind is being devoured by piranas cuz I’m going bananas. Finally, the court should also reject Mr. Hilton’s blanket demand that the court prohibit disclosure of any in camera submission to Miss Lively. Mr. Hilton ignores that exparte in camera review is extraordinary and should be limited to only instances where it is absolutely necessary. To the extent that any of the materials submitted to the court exparte are not in and of themselves privileged, there is no legal basis to deny Miss Lively access to those materials. Respectfully submitted. Okay. I think I have to respond to this. Do I have to respond to their response? I haven’t asked my dad yet. I feel like I should respond because they’re misrepresenting a lot here. Are you okay? I have nothing else to say. I said this video was going to suck. This video suck. This video sucks. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching and supporting and being there for me. I don’t know. I don’t Whatever. I will be answering anything in the comments. I’ll see you in the comments.

😩 #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 Is Still Going After Me – Hard! | Perez Hilton

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