data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8ecd1/8ecd1523da996ec35f7c058dae97b0ff078bfe9e" alt="courtesy afp courtesy afp"
A U.S. court has ruled against actress Blake Lively’s request to access Justin Baldoni’s phone records as part of an ongoing legal dispute involving allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the court determined that the request constituted an excessive invasion of Baldoni’s privacy.
Lively’s legal team had sought access to phone records, claiming they contained evidence of a conspiracy involving Baldoni and other individuals aimed at damaging her reputation. However, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman denied the request, stating that even if others were involved in the alleged plot, it did not justify granting Lively access to extensive private data. The judge emphasized that phone records often contain sensitive personal information and should not be broadly disclosed.
While the judge denied Lively’s request, he clarified that she could still pursue specific details, such as the identities and contact information of individuals involved, using other legal avenues.
Following the decision, Lively’s representatives alleged that Baldoni promptly sought legal intervention to prevent the disclosure of certain phone records upon receiving the request. They also stated that Lively’s legal team intends to refine their approach and submit more targeted requests directly to those involved in the case.
On the other hand, Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, welcomed the court’s decision, arguing that it prevented Lively from excessively invading his client’s privacy. He characterized Lively’s legal strategy as a desperate attempt to find damaging information against Baldoni.
With the court ruling in Baldoni’s favor for now, the legal battle is far from over, as Lively’s team prepares to refine their strategy and continue seeking evidence.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ