A. C
3.3K posts
Sample from Audiobook: Hollywood Hearsay, Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni Part 1 - from California CRD to SDNY lawsuits to crisis consultant's Texas echo, on the defamation & anti-SLAPP cases, book: amazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55 Audiobook here: audible.com/pd/B0DWCQ9WMK
JUDGE’S ORDER ABOUT MULTIPLE MOTIONS TO SEAL/UNSEAL DOCUMENTS — The court ruled on multiple motions to seal or unseal documents, generally favouring public access except for sensitive personal or medical information, and ordered specific documents unsealed or sealed accordingly, inclusive the secret source of the frizzy hair bimbo, @blakelively, in her memorandum of law in support of her motion for fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1 and the corresponding declaration. — BL’s request to seal documents revealing a declarant’s identity is DENIED; documents ordered unsealed because the declarant’s privacy interest is insufficient to overcome public access presumption and the declarant voluntarily participated. — The court therefore orders Dkt. Nos. 748, 748-2, and 748-3 unsealed. Although WF assert that they have no opposition to sealing the declarant’s name, Dkt. No. 786 at 2, the audio recording reveals the declarant’s identity, so maintaining the individual’s name under seal would be an empty formality. WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER FOR WF 🫡🫡 — BL’s secret source WILL NOT remain a closely guarded trade secret like the recipe for Coca Cola 🤭🤭 — Now I am expecting another string of comments saying the ‘judge is biased,’ ‘the judge favours BL’ or ‘the judge is bought’ 🤷🏽🤷🏽 URL (Order Dkt. No. 848): storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… URL (BL’s Motion Dkt. No. 748): courtlistener.com/docket/6951055…
