Justin Baldoni Scores Legal Win Over Blake Lively, No Gag Order for His Lawyer | TMZ Live - video Dailymotion

TMZ

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.

Transcript

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.

Justin Baldoni Scores Legal Win Over Blake Lively, No Gag Order for His Lawyer | TMZ Live

Category

Transcript

Recommended