Justin Baldoni just scored what he sees as a legal win over Blake Lively ... because the first court hearing in their beef ended without a gag order for Justin's lawyer.
Category
✨
PeopleTranscript
00:00after months of Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively
00:04going at each other, their teams going at each other,
00:06their publicists, their lawyers,
00:09finally, they were in front of a judge this morning
00:12because there were some decisions to be made
00:15as far as what Blake's side had been calling for
00:18for weeks now, which was a gag order.
00:20They hate the fact that Brian Friedman, Justin's attorney,
00:26has been very publicly putting out videos,
00:29putting out, on Friday night, they dropped every single.
00:34Almost 170 pages of a timeline of all the interactions.
00:39It goes from 2019 right up to this year.
00:42And we're gonna get into a little bit of that
00:43because it's really interesting and relevant.
00:46But I gotta say, the reaction from the other side
00:49is real simple, you started it.
00:52You went to the New York Times
00:54and the judge sided with Justin Baldoni, squarely.
01:00No gag order.
01:00There is no gag order, but here's what's interesting
01:04is that Blake's team is at least saying
01:07they're pleased with this.
01:08It wouldn't seem like they would be
01:10because they wanted a gag order and didn't get it.
01:12This is like a Nancy Kerrigan triple Lutz
01:14because it's spinning like crazy.
01:16Her team says, we are pleased with the result
01:18of today's hearing and eager to move forward immediately
01:21with discovery in this case.
01:24The court granted our request that all attorneys
01:26in the matter actually follow the rule of law
01:30and not make any statements that could prejudice the jury.
01:32B.S., just B.S.
01:34I mean, look at the timeline that's out,
01:37prejudice the jury, and they didn't shut that down.
01:39Here's the thing, everything prejudices juries.
01:42I mean, you don't say something
01:44if it's not meant to skew things toward your side.
01:47So every statement is designed to prejudice a jury
01:51and lawyers try to prejudice the jury.
01:53That's what they do.
01:55And so the idea that they're saying,
01:57oh, we don't wanna, I covered the O.J. Simpson case.
02:00All of that information before the trial,
02:03a lot of people said was designed to prejudice the jury.
02:06Juries generally don't get swayed by media coverage.
02:10Didn't happen in Rodney King, didn't happen O.J. Simpson,
02:14doesn't happen a lot.
02:15So the idea that they're saying, oh, we won this.
02:18No, you lost.
02:19You lost this case.
02:21You lost this hearing.
02:22They lost this hearing.
02:23This hearing.
02:24We didn't lose the case.
02:24Obviously, the trial, and by the way, they said-
02:26I was about to say, we won this.
02:27We are eager to move forward.
02:29The trial date that's been set, by the way,
02:31is March of 2026.
02:33Right.
02:34So they can move forward, but it's gonna be a glacial-
02:38This case is never going to trial.
02:40I agree.
02:41Never going to trial.
02:43I mean, there's nothing they could say after this.
02:44They lose in court.
02:45They have to say, we're looking forward
02:47to trying this case.
02:48They can't sort of thumb their nose at the judge.
02:50I don't think this case will go to trial.
02:52I like what Baldoni has done here, though,
02:54in releasing all of the info.
02:56His tactic seems to be, I'm going to go full open robe.
02:59If there's some blemishes on me, that's fine,
03:02but I want to show the full timeline,
03:03and I think it's been quite effective
03:05in turning the tides against her,
03:06because now that New York Times article,
03:08with the benefit of seeing his entire timeline,
03:10does start to seem cherry-picked.
03:12So let's talk about this intimacy coordinator,
03:15because this is really interesting.
03:15Right, so one of the things, I mean,
03:17there's a lot in that timeline.
03:19Like you said, 170-something pages.
03:22One of the things in there has to do
03:24with an intimacy coordinator,
03:25which is very relevant to Blake's lawsuit against Justin,
03:29where she's accusing him of sexual harassment.
03:31Where he was sending her messages
03:34that seemed sexual, she said,
03:35talking about porn, orgasms, things like that.
03:38Right, some other things, language we can't use here.
03:41But he says, in one of the communications in this timeline,
03:47is his notes, his handwritten notes,
03:50from a meeting with the intimacy coordinator,
03:52who's someone the studio requires on all productions,
03:56to basically make sure that all the actors are comfortable,
03:59and also to help the director and the writers
04:03come up with the right language to use in particular scenes.
04:06Justin says in his notes, it was very important to him
04:09to have a female intimacy coordinator,
04:12because they wanted this movie
04:14to be made for a female audience.
04:15So they have essentially like a seminar,
04:19and Blake decides not to attend.
04:21Right, and that's in his notes,
04:22says that Blake said that she didn't need to be there,
04:25and so she didn't go.
04:27He goes and has the meeting,
04:28and gets all this language
04:31on what they should put into the movie.
04:33The do's and the don'ts
04:34of how to go about shooting scenes that are sexual.
04:37And the things that they wanna highlight.
04:38And he, as he puts it,
04:41was left in the unenviable position
04:44of having to now call Blake at her penthouse,
04:48and have these conversations with her,
04:50to relay what the intimacy coach said.
04:52Because he's also not just the star,
04:53but he's the director.
04:54He's the director.
04:55So he did that, and he's saying,
04:58in this now amended lawsuit,
05:00that that's what Blake was referring to
05:02when she was saying that,
05:04oh, he would talk to me about sexual things,
05:07and he's saying, I was just telling her
05:09what the intimacy coordinator said.
05:11And yes, I did use some graphic language,
05:14but all of it came from the intimacy coach.
05:17It's an interesting point,
05:20and the fact that she didn't go to the seminar,
05:24and that everybody else did,
05:26or the relevant people did,
05:28and he supposedly is bringing her up to speed,
05:31it does kind of address why he wrote what he wrote.
05:35Right.
05:36Dana Kuritskis, West Hollywood, California.
05:39So yeah, considering the fact
05:40that Blake was so opinionated,
05:44and clearly had lots of thoughts
05:47about the intimate scenes
05:49that were going to be filmed in this movie,
05:51it would have been in her best interest
05:53to actually meet with the intimacy coordinator.
05:58I mean, I think a big part of this film
06:00is being able to actually talk
06:02about this type of subject matter,
06:04and allegedly, Blake was uncomfortable even doing that.
06:07So I guess my question is,
06:08why sign on to do this movie in the first place?
06:11Just so you know, tomorrow,
06:15I'm shooting my first podcast.
06:18Yes, Mark Garagos,
06:19who's a famed criminal defense lawyer, as you know,
06:21and we're gonna be talking about this case,
06:24and how it opened that curtain,
06:27and also why, I don't know how Mark feels about it,
06:30but I am so convinced this isn't gonna go to trial.
06:33And I think he disagrees.
06:34I know how you feel.
06:35I can't wait to see what Mark thinks.
06:36By the way, podcast, I didn't even tell you the name.
06:39Two Angry Men.
06:42I knew that was one of the options.
06:44I kinda knew you were gonna go with that.