Getty Images
A few days after Blake Lively demanded a stronger protective order in a legal battle with “it’s over with us,” his team has a biting response.
In a letter to Judge Lewis J. Liman, Posts“Given how vibrant political parties have been actively and aggressively making public and lawsuits for Lively’s media claims, we are now amazed that she wants to violently block the public from accessing material and related evidence,” Bardoni’s team said.
Bardoni’s lawyers had originally agreed to the court’s model’s protection order, but it was not Lively’s proposal that includes the “attorneys only (“aeo”) category.
Bardoni’s team said, “The lively party is not explained, and it cannot be explained why such a mechanism is insufficient.”
The letter states, “Mrs. Lively has already released details of what is called “harassment” in the revised complaint. Therefore, Lively lacks the “honest” belief that there is information about such “personally sensitive nature.” [her] Privacy rights… ‘”
Lively’s team was later fired in a letter to the judge, saying, “Certain online content creators who frequently parrot the Wayfarer Parties line have used similar misleading accusations. The false feature trip itself accepted by the opposition through this manufactured echo chamber fully justifies the protection order that establishes proper protection against the interests of third-party privacy.”
The Lively team emphasized that “cases involving sexual harassment allegations with a famous individual” require additional protection and privacy.
The Lively team that blasted Baldoni’s team said, “The position that women against sexual harassment have somehow exempt all privacy interests by somehow leaving ruthless neglect and rude to women defending the most basic workplace protection against sexual harassment, shows the futility of future overall. The inevitable by-product of the party’s position of the Wayfarer (and potentially third parties) seek to persuade lawyers for the Wayfarer’s party, a massive by-product of party and judicial resources, as they ask that women have given way or are not intended to speak, simply because they don’t confiscate all privacy interests.”
The trial is scheduled for a trial in March 2026, but the judge threatened to move it as things continue to ugh among the fighters.
