BREAKING! Blake Lively Trial POSTPONED! Lawyer Reacts

BREAKING! Blake Lively Trial POSTPONED! Lawyer Reacts

Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively trial gets postponed by two months and did the judge imply he wants them to settle? Also, we got Ron Zambrano talk about did I screw up my case and miss filings and could Justin lose his on spoilation? You do not want to miss this one. Welcome to Popcorn Planet. I am Andy Signar. I’m here with Ron Zambrano. You’re a fortune teller, Ron. You got it right. You should go get a lotto ticket. Uh, welcome back to the show. How you doing? I’m doing great, Andy. How are you? Good. Uh, I I want to get through this because this news came in today. There was a hearing and now the word’s coming back that the trial has been postponed two months. It’ll now begin instead of March into May, which obviously is a sigh of relief for me because it’s prepping having to do this in March. And the documentary gives us a little bit more time to breathe. But you called this this is not a surprise to you. But what was interesting as we go through all the articles and we have I have a lot of questions, but there was one little part here specifically. Sources also are telling team Z the judge ordered the parties to contact a particular magistrate judge for settlement purposes. What do you think all this means? What are your reactions? Uh let’s hear it. So this is a very normal part of the process from the judge’s perspective. Uh the judge is um very incentivized to get cases off the docket and um maybe avoid some a large amount of work. As we all know, these motions that are pending before him are very very enormous. Um, but every single judge in the federal district and most judges and counties are going to tell the parties, “Listen, you guys have to try to go settle, which uh what the federal judge can do is they can or he can order them to try to settle through the magistrate.” Um, so apparently there’s a specific magistrate that either assists him or is in the pool of of that that he can ask uh to help him. And what will happen was will be that both parties will reach out to the magistrate uh to the magistrate’s clerk or courtroom and say we’ve been ordered. Here’s the order. When would you like to do it’s typically called like a settlement conference or uh a neutral evaluation is another one they use in the federal district. And then they’ll they’ll they’ll go through them they’ll go through the process. Whether or not they’re going in with actual intent to settle the case is another is another story, right? like you could sit there and go, I’m here because I’ve been told to versus, “Hey, let’s really try to reach compromise.” Um, and but the judge at least want judge Lyman wants to be told that that process at least wasn’t entered into. After that, he he can’t force anybody to do anything. So, this this this is all standard is what I assume. Just because he’s asked him to set settle doesn’t mean he wants them to settle. It just is part of the process, I imagine. Guys, make sure you’ve you’ve gone through this particular uh process. You’ve said it, everyone’s said it. They should be settling at this point, it seems. Uh, but do you think they will? I don’t I don’t think they One of the egos has to be put aside to to do it. Uh, so I don’t and I just don’t think they’re too they’ve put so much blood and money into this. I just don’t see it happening. Someone has to win or lose and it’s going to be appealed and we’ve talked about that already. I think that’s what’s going to have to happen. Postponing this doesn’t show any weakness on either side to you, correct? No. So this was expect I think most attorneys that work in this space uh New York or in the federal space probably saw this happening the shutdown for 42 days really impacted the courts all over the country and the one thing that will never is not supposed to stop is uh criminal trials under the fifth amendment fifth and fourth amendments every person’s entitled to a speedy trial. So during the shutdown if there was any uh slowdown in in resources it affected the civil docket. So, the reviewing of all these things, everything had to be put to criminal trials. And so, I’m assuming that backlog has finally been um catching up to the civil docket for next spring. I’m sure the this trial is not the only one before Judge Lyman and other judges around the federal system that are being continued. Yeah. I mean, and shout out to uh docketupdates.com who gives a lot of now uh good and up-to-date because now it’s still 159 days till trial. The next part is this sort of the opposite the replied opposition uh for uh Blake Lively’s tomorrow. It gives us all these deadlines. I mean, I guess what I’m bringing this up just because like what’s next? What do we expect? I’m They’re saying that on uh January uh in January is when uh 22nd is when we’ll hear oral and summary judgments, etc. So, what does that mean? Like when does evidence stop coming in? When do they start really prepping the the main evidence, you know, argument? What should we look forward to? So um there’s there’s there’s two main things that are happening right now and and are reflected actually in what you’re showing. So the summary judgement hearing and then also the motion for judgmental pleadings is uh after the reply is is um submitted for both motions. The court can do one of two things. Uh the court can actually hear oral argument or the court can say I’ve got your documents. I don’t need to hear from anybody. And then I’ll call you, you call me. And then the other dates, the 23rd, the pre-trial order, motions, eliminate, joint proposal, all those things. Andy, that is so much work for the attorneys because they have to work together. They have to work they one, they have to they have to work together to bring to to draft these forms to make sure everything is done on the 23rd. So, not only are they working supposedly for oral arguments on the 22nd, at the same time they’re they’re really spending hours and hours of time with all these things that have been submitted creating exhibits lists, creating witness lists, which might be you, Andy. Uh creating um you know, come back to me. But yeah, yeah, right. But but but I mean that’s how massive it it may be. I mean it might be dozens of people on these list. They have to be there have to be uh uh estimated times from each side examination. There have to be objections to evidence. There have to be it is so much work that is going to be in in this particular uh party’s January that is leading up to this and the judge can go on the 21st going uh everything’s off. I’ll call you don’t call me and uh you know when I’m ready to hear anything and put you really on the trial track I will uh reach out to you. That’s that’s totally possible still because a lot of judges still do that um in a lot of districts. Now, there’s two other big points because one I I from what I’m gathering, this actually helps my case and I wanted to talk about that with you for a second because a lot of people are out there ignorantly talking about we were late on filings. We didn’t do this. We didn’t do that. It’s just false. If you actually go through the Florida docket, you’ll see we filed everything and we immediately declared privilege, journalistic privilege, which is what we legally had to do. We didn’t have to do a privilege log right away. We we’re arguing why we didn’t need to have a privilege log. And that was part of our whole process. And in the hearings and transcripts when we get them, everybody out there who’s jumping to conclusions based on that order, you’re in for an awakening because it’s all in the docket. Just don’t just read the finale. Read what we submitted. And part of what we submitted, Ron, and I’ve shared some of the notes with you is the fact that we were try the burden, right? And just the amount of the fact that Blake’s case was sealed, the fact that we didn’t even know what they had and the judge was seemingly trying to make this like a urgent I’m crucial part of this case, which I’m not. Uh, and so if anything, the way I look at this now, it feels like as as Lyman’s basically acknowledging the volume of documents turned over in a way, it’s too large to review. uh this is almost in a way helping me right and proving that she acted almost too quickly to assume uh that this it was so urgent that that this my communications were central the burden on me was minimal I mean as we’re looking through this as you just said the burden to compile to this case is insane there’s so much to it do you see it that way too is this almost in a way proving the point of what we were trying to argue and that like your honor there’s way too much more to this to just immediately blanketly accept Blake request for a nonparty journalist to suddenly hand over private communication. Yeah, you you make you’re you’re alluding to a really good point. So, when you as a third party were being asked to produce its own for purposes, we’ll just call it work product, your own private um professional documents, the burden is high on on lively, right? It has to be really really high. And there has to be a showing that of of some form in order for to satisfy in order to breach into your privacy while protecting while not going too far. So most judges um will really take that to heart and be intellectually honest and be like this is a high standard person asking for these documents of someone that has nothing to do with their case. You have to meet it. And what it looks like happened is that this particular judge in rushing errored in the side of ex of disclosure versus ering on the side of protecting your privacy, which I think is is is error, right? So, and I, you know, I I don’t blame you for for your feelings of frustration. I I do think it was rushed through and not given the correct weight in the test that should have been applied to you. Uh because a lot of it you’re everyone’s flying blind, right? There’s just a lot of assumptions. Lives is like, I say this and it’s the truth. And J’s like, well, she said it. You know, it’s it it’s really frustrating when judges kind of give the rubber the green to the other side when it should be the other way. Well, in particular when I’ve done sworn affidavits and Le Lively’s not said anything in this case and everything’s under seal, it’s a tremendous burden. So noted, I always like to hear your opinion on that, but also on the other side of this coin from now going back to the case, there’s this uh uh basically there’s a few things Blake’s sort of requiring sanctions saying signal messages were uh deleted. Sorry, there’s so many doc I think it’s uh I’m trying to figure out which ones are which. Here it is. Basically, this this whole document here is trying to allude that well they knew they had messages. They deleted it. I guess then before the trial was happening though arguing signal selfdeletes. The president uses it. Uh clearly it’s sort of a private communication model. But Blake’s now trying to use as well. We don’t know if they delete or not, but we know there was correspondence. It’s no longer there. Signal must have self-destructed it. yada yada yada. Your honor, we’re trying. We want spoil or sanction uh spoilage sanctions to basically from what I’m gathering Ron to prove they they deleted stuff which obviously affects and we want that on the record when we’re doing this in case to prove they did delete stuff and how troubling this is. At the same time it’s also of note the judge is basically now compelling defendants to uh produce stuff within camera for the for for judge Lyman proving he’s taking some of this seriously similar to mine. What’s privilege? It’s not a as you take all this. I guess it’s two sort of points. Let’s start with the spoilation. If they were able to prove that Justin did delete or Justin’s team rather deleted signal messages, we don’t know what they were what they were those messages were, but is that enough to create a spoilage sanction? And that’s a pretty serious thing, is it not? If they have to go on record saying yes, some communication was deleted. Could that actually harm Justin’s case? So, it depends on and it was unclear in the documents that we just saw. We we we skimmed earlier uh the reply. So um it can yes but it depend. So there’s two things that have to be done. The judge has to has to be convinced that the messages that are being sought were not preserved when they should have been preserved. Now my understanding of signal is that the setting is you send the message it gets deleted automatically within within a certain amount of time. I you could also selfdee but yeah depends how the settings work. Correct. depends how the settings work. And if the judge says messages by the time you were you you defendants were on notice that there was litigation the obligation to preserve starts there. So once that satisfies it happened two did you take steps to preserve things uh reasonably. Um, and again, if the settings are the settings, is that unreasonable not to change the settings on something that’s, you know, we don’t even know the context of Well, and to add to it, like the the retaliation campaign was over the summer before there was a lawsuit in place in the first place. So, if they were having deleted signal chats during the alleged retaliation campaign, that’s not them deleting evidence, is it? Correct. Yes, that that’s a that’s a great point. And if that is where the focus of this quote unquote attack is, then I think the judge is going to be like, “What’s their obligation to preserve if they don’t know they’re going to have to need this later on uh on an app where everybody uses knowing that they’re being deleted anyway?” Um, and then there’s no there’s no finding of intentional destruction of evidence, which is the spoilation. Spoilation means intentional destruction of evidence. Now, what if the judge is convinced going, “Yep, you know, I see there’s enough evidence for me to have a finding of an intentional destruction of evidence. What is what is the remedy for that?” So, the the worst one, the worst possible remedy is what we call an issue sanction, which is he makes a determination for the jury going, uh, you know, uh, these messages have to do with, um, these messages have to do with retaliation. So I’m making a finding that retaliation happened. Boom. Now that is an extreme example. Typically what happens is the judge will will give will let the jury have an instruction. You were instructed to make the assumption as a finding of fact that the the doc the that the deleted messages were harmful to the defendant’s interest and that’s why they were deleted. It’s it’s basically he’s instructing them to do it and it’s not up to them anymore. That is an instruction in your analysis of everything. The these messages jury were intentionally deleted because they were not favorable to the defendant and then make whatever assumptions past that. That could be an order that could be done. That’s probably the more likely one that’s extreme versus like an art finding, you know, a summary finding against the defendant. Um, but that’s what you want, right? Like you don’t want money. like it took me like 10 hours to write this motion. Like I don’t care about that. I want to win a trial. I want I want something to freak out the other side. I’m going to win a trial. So if the judge agrees with that and does that, that’s a big deal. Like that’s a big deal to try, right? Yeah. Right. And and now second part with this fact of Lyman requesting in camera review as someone now before I even get there because now I have more experience in this than I ever expected, Ron, of having actually someone who’s now put in in cam review in his case and have it used against me and almost weaponized which is not supposed to. It’s kind of shocking how she revealed details of my inc camera review and flippantly. Um, and so the reality is it’s it’s a good sign in a way, right? Because it shows the judge isn’t just signing into the drama and taking everything Blake says at face value. He wants to see the evidence, right? But it could also be worrisome because even in mine she misunderstood what she was even looking at. So what do you see when you when you see this that that you know he’s now directing them to actually give specific materials in camera? Is that a good sign to you? Bad sign? How do you take it all? Well, just like you, um, I think when you put your faith in the judge that they would do the right thing, it’s putting the faith in Lyman that they’re going to do the right thing. Now that Lyman’s actually seeing this, these messages, these communications, these evidence, uh, that one side is saying, listen, this stuff is privilege, it shouldn’t even be disclosed ever. Um, you, you know, pre, you know, treated delicately because it can, it may be a violation of, of civil rights if they get it wrong. So hopefully Lyman treats it that responsibility with uh more temperament than what you experienced uh and and really siphon things through. Uh but this is the power of the courts, right? Like they make the decision and once it’s done, it’s done. If it’s exposed, it’s exposed. They they have no um you can’t sue them for making a wrong decision. It’s just you could just appeal and hopefully it gets clogged back somehow. So this is the kind of awesome power um that they have in the sense that once they say something that’s it like they’re they’ve made a decision hopefully it’s the quote unquote right one but at least one that respects both parties rights and the third parties are affected by these things right like there’s so much potential blow uh these ripple effects across the entire country in the entertainment industry depending on what it is you know like every week I feel like there’s one another major celebrity you know involved in this what was the last one I saw you talk about the rock I was like what’s the rock to do with this, but who knows? You know, you just never know. Everybody’s involved. And yes, all I can do is appeal, guys. Remember, you can help with appeal. I’m going to put the pin comment down there. We still need your support. Ron, thank you as always. We’ll be live later today with more. Talk about a lot of the stuff that’s coming in. So, make sure you hit that subscribe uh and hit the bell so you get notified when it happens. Smash that thumbs up as well. Leave your comments down below. Ron, always a pleasure. We appreciate you being here so much. We got a lot more coming here on Popcorn Planet, so stay tuned.

BREAKING! Blake Lively Trial POSTPONED! Judge DEMANDS In-Camera Review Of Evidence!? Lawyer Ron Zambrano Reacts

Help Support Our Documentary “It Ends With Justice: Justin Baldoni vs Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds here: http://ItEndsWithJustice.com
Watch the Trailer here: https://youtu.be/v2OGwByAIQU?si=8HfJvuD41dNH_St0

You can also become a MEMBER or Purchase New Merch here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com – All paid members will be able to see our documentaries first and all funds raised there go toward future productions!

Thumbnail images are fairuse satire created by adobe photoshop and artificial intelligence artwork.

S U P P O R T T H I S C H A N N E L:
Join, Donate, & Follow here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com or here: https://linktr.ee/AndySignore

Popcorned Planet offers commentary on the biggest Celebrity News, Pop Culture Outrage and Viral Internet Stories from all over the internet. Created and hosted by Andy Signore (as seen on Piers Morgan Uncensored) Popcorned Planet is your one stop place Daily News, Celebrity Gossip, Drama, Hollywood insight and Pop Culture Commentary.

C O N T A C T / B U S I N E S S : PopcornedPlanetTeam@gmail.com

Or Send Packages, Toys & Fan Mail To:
Andy Signore
16350 Bruce B Downs Blvd
PO Box # 48742
Tampa FL, 33647

Get the latest `news update` on the `blake lively justin baldoni` trial for “It Ends With Us”! We dive into the recent `court` postponement and discuss the judge’s push for a settlement. Legal expert Ron Zambrano breaks down the `legal matters` and potential issues for Justin Baldoni in this crucial `it ends with us` development. #itendswithus