Celebrity Lawyer Explains Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's Court Privacy Battle-Attorney Eyes Only скачать в хорошем качестве

Celebrity Lawyer Explains Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's Court Privacy Battle-Attorney Eyes Only

Celebrity lawyer and legal analyst Christopher C. Melcher, who is ranked as a best family law attorney in California, explains Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni‘s Legal Privacy Battle & Attorney Eyes Only Order. Andy: Just a quick recap and then please correct me, yes, Blake ended up getting a designation. Here are the four quadrants that they agreed upon. Trade secrets, security measures, medical information. None of that seemed that problematic, but it was this last one, highly personal and intimate information about third parties, highly personal, intimate information about parties other than information directly relevant to the truth or falsity of any allegation in the complaints in this case. When I read that, it's very broad. Now, later it says, "Yes, of course all things about Justin and It Ends With Us will be in," but am I crazy or does that seem like a problematic, more of an annoying thing the team Justin's going to have to deal with? Christopher Melcher: Well, it is problematic and annoying potentially for both parties, but I think here is Justin is the one who needs information from Blake- more than Blake needs information from Justin, so I think he's more impacted by this order. Just to set the stage a little bit, what happens when somebody goes to court when they can't resolve their dispute, they surrender it to a court system, judge or jury to be decided, and these are public forums, so everything that's set in court or filed in court is generally public record. And so we give up that right of privacy to have a judge decide this matter in a US court. Now, what we're talking about here in this order is pretrial discovery, meaning that each party has the right to compel the other to produce information, answer questions before going to trial. They evaluate that information, determine whether it's worthy or relevant, and then they present it in open court. This order saying, "Sure, go forth and get information from each other parties." However, there are certain categories of information that's so sensitive and private that it needs to be protected from disclosure. And I understand if there's a medical record, if there's some reason to get a medical record, and usually that comes up because somebody's saying, "Hey, I'm so distraught by what this other person did to me that I can't sleep at night and I have pain and suffering and emotional distress," okay, well if you went to the doctor for it, we're entitled to see what you complained to the doctor about and how long that's really been going on and what the diagnosis was. But those medical records are really sensitive. They need to be protected. Totally agree with it. You're right, it's that category D, highly personal and intimate information about third parties or about the parties themselves. Well, who's going to decide this when it's turning it over? When Blake says, "Oh, all of my text messages are of course highly personal and intimate, therefore I'm designating them as such." Attorney eyes only is the order, meaning that if Blake Lively produces some text messages with herself or about a third party and over to Justin's side, she can designate it as being highly personal and intimate. And that means that Justin cannot see that document, only his attorney can see it. And I've spoken out against these rules because it interferes with the attorney-client relationship. If I, as an attorney, are representing you and I now obtain what I think is really powerful evidence but I can't share it with you, I can just say, "Hey Andy, great news. I got this smoking gun." And you're going to be, "What is it?" "Oh, I can't tell you about it. I can't even show it to you." Andy: I'm paying for you to collect it. "Yeah, you pay me all this money, and I'm like, "I can't share it that with you." Well, how can I not share it with you? You're my client. I have a duty to you. And you know more than I do about the facts, and now you could be like, "Oh, if I saw that message, this would then unlock all this other information or inconsistencies," but I can't share it with you. It's totally screwed up, interferes with the attorney-client relationship. ...Why are we saying, "Oh, we can trust an attorney with this information, but we can't trust the client, the party who has not had these problems with violating the law"? I hate the order. I understand the reason for protection, but I think this goes way too far. And look, both sides will survive. They'll deal with it. If there's something that's designated improperly and it's really not that confidential, they'll take it back to the court, they'll strip off this protection. There's this annoyance, but they'll survive," explains top family law attorney Christopher C. Melcher. ©2025 Popcorned Planet. No claims made to copyrighted material. Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP 5941 Variel Ave Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818-591-3700 #bestfamilylawattorney #celebritylegalanalyst #celebritylawyer