Blake Lively Fear “Mental Health Questions” is a risk that it will leak

The couple has made a request to keep their texts with “high -level” people confidential, referring to the concern that Baldoni’s camp may leak them into the press.

However, Justin Baldoni’s lawyer, Brian Freitman, has returned to Blake Livelia and Ryan Reynolds, calling her proposal “unnecessary”.

Livedly and Reynolds want their conversations to be private as the ongoing court fight with Baldoni’s salaries.

At the Federal Court of Manhattan on Thursday, lawyer Meryl Conant Gordski said the couple wants to introduce a protective order before they revealed “high profile” people for “Lively time” it ends with us “because they fear that Baldoni could leak them to the press, one press, one press, one press. Rolling stoneIn the area

The lawyer explained in court that such texts would have a high “PR” value, whether they are important the fact of the case.

“There is a significant possibility of irreversible damage if marginal conversations with high -level individuals who do not matter should fit into the wrong hands,” the table said.

“These parties have 100 million reasons for leaking information because the value is higher than that of court orders,” the lawyer added.

According to the news sales market, Lively’s lawyer went further to encourage judge Lewis Liman to place an additional security layer known as the category of “Lawyer Eyes” for such texts, as well as information on the mental health of the parties and the safety measures they have taken in the hatred.

The participant emphasized that such a designation is intended for information that contains “a speech on children, deep mental health issues or private residency or home locations”.

When Liman asked that she was managing whether she points out that Baldoni’s lawyers put “risks” for lively and Rhinold’s security, the lawyer said “No”.

However, the participant noted that Baldoni co -respondents include people “whose whole life is based on providing information to the press and content creators”.

Baldoni lawyer Brian Freedman has since returned to the Power couple’s request saying it is “unnecessary” and “offensive that someone will suggest that we will not comply with a protective order”.

Freedman added that Livly and Reynold’s plan would unfounded with “celebrity people” and “people who are strongly different from others in the industry.

He also explained that the so -called “model” protective order, which was submitted to the court to prohibit the leakage of sensitive information in the case, already provides sufficient protection.

“My clients have the right to defend themselves, they have the right to transparency,” he told the court New York Postadding that the setup he offers is not meant to be “malicious” alive.

Judge Liman immediately did not pass his decision, saying he would give his opinion “soon”. However, he warned that since the case had gained public interest, federal court houses “have a public access assumption”.

Liman added that the existing conditions of the proposed protection order are already preventing third parties from leaking sensitive information to the press, adding that such leaks could be kept contempt for the court, thereby risking fines or even prison times.

This happens after Liman suggested Tuesday he could reject New York Times As a defendant Baldoni in a lawsuit against alive.

The “Jane Virgin” star denied allegations of sexual harassment that the Gossip Girl actress destroyed her and filed against her and submitted $ 250 million to her claims.

He then followed $ 400 million against Livly, Reynolds and their publicist Leslie Sloan, accusing them of the conspiracy to destroy his reputation and wrapped from him for control of the film.

However, the judge Liman said New York Times February 28, which must be resolved from the case that is offered a “significant cause of dismissal” and “strong evidence that its dismissal suggestion may be successful for merit”.

The recent hearing takes place after the Livly court summons, which requested access to more than two years of director’s call and text data, Judge Liman denied.

Livedly had asked “documents for inlet and outgoing calls or text messages … During the December 1, 2022 period to the present.”

However, Liman ruled Baldoni in favor, saying that Lively’s request could lead to the release of sensitive information related to doctors and psychologists, as well as communicating with people who are not related to their case.

The judge also questioned Lively’s reason to request a call and text data from two years before Baldoni’s possible 2024 smear campaign against him began.

“Live mainly claims that court summons will help identify a” larger network of individuals “who continued against him against a negative media campaign,” said Judge Liman Everyday mailIn the area

He continued, “But according to Lively, this negative campaign only began around about 2024 in August 2024 … So it is not clear how communication to the Wayfarer parties in 2022.