Privacy Remains a Sticking Point in Ongoing ‘It Ends With Us’ Litigation

“The parties in this case, on both sides, include people whose entire living is made off providing information to the press and content creators,” Meryl Governski, Lively’s attorney, told the judge. “There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders.”

“There is a significant chance of irreparable harm if marginal conversations with high profile individuals with no relevance to the case were to fall into wrong hands,” she added.

In addition to apparent concern over private text messages and medical records, Lively’s representation (which she shares with her publicist and fellow defendant, Leslie Sloane) argued that the case is rife with “trade secrets” that no one save for their attorneys should be privy to. What do said “trade secrets” entail? According to them: marketing plans, business strategies, and prospective clients. The way they see it, if the information were to be made public, publicists on both sides of the case would be made exceptionally vulnerable. Baldoni’s attorneys, however, disagree.

“This is not the formula for Coke and Pepsi,” Bryan Freedman reportedly said. He further expressed concern with how an “attorneys eyes only” order would be possible during the discovery process.

After the 90-minute hearing, Liman didn’t issue a final ruling on the matter, but told both parties he would do so “soon.” He did, however, say that in a high-profile litigation such as this, it’s inevitable that information will be made public, regardless of an order.

“A lot of what you are talking about is inherent in the nature of the case,” Liman said. “If you sue a high-profile person in this industry, it’s going to get picked up by the press. The stuff that’s highly relevant is going to end up being disclosed.”