Another Discovery Decision in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Parties/Justin Baldoni

The scope of the right to seal portions of motions for spoliation sanctions was carefully explained in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, LLC, 2025 WL 3295147 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025).

The lawsuit involving Ms. Lively, Mr. Baldoni, and others has received substantial attention.  How Much Attention Does a Big Case Deserve? (Nov. 22, 2025).  Most recently, the Lively court addressed a privilege log issue. Privilege Log Decision in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Justin Baldoni, et al.(Nov. 19, 2025).  Many sensitive discovery issues have previously been presented and, nine earlier blogs were listed in “Birth Video” Discovery Dispute in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Baldoni (Nov. 21, 2025).

The most recent decision in Lively involves the scope of sealing parts of motions for spoliation sanctions against the Wayfarer Parties.  A preliminary motion to seal discovery materials that had been marked as either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” was pending. Preliminary sealing motions provide time for impacted parties or non-parties to participate in a sealing decision.

The Lively court wrote that several parties and non-parties moved to continue sealing two motions for spoliation sanctions:

First, they seek continued sealing of personally identifying information (“PII”) in the form of email addresses and cellphone numbers…. Second, they seek continued sealing of “sensitive and confidential business information,” especially information involving public-relations work completed for individuals who are not parties in this case.… The motions argue that the privacy interests of non-party clients and prospective clients outweigh any presumption of public access that might exist.

Ms. Lively responded that, while she did not object to redaction of identification of non-party clients, the redactions were overbroad in shielding the kind of public relations work done by the Wallace Non-Parties.  Those parties replied that the redacted information was irrelevant.

The court stated that there is a presumption of immediate public access to judicial records.  It cited precedent that the presumption applies to spoliation motions.

However, the Lively court wrote that the presumption could be overcome if there are specific findings that sealing is both necessary to protect “higher values” and narrowly tailored.  The privacy interests of “innocent third parties”  should “weigh heavily….”

As to sealing of filed documents for irrelevance, the court wrote:

A document is relevant to the performance of the judicial function if it would reasonably have the tendency to influence a district court’s ruling on a motion or in the exercise of its supervisory powers, without regard to which way the court ultimately rules or whether the document ultimately in fact influences the court’s decision….  [D]ocuments that the judge should have considered or relied upon, but did not, are just as deserving of disclosure as those that actually entered into the judge’s decision…. However, information that could have no relevance to the judicial function may be sealed. [emphasis added; cleaned up; citations and quotations omitted].

Two generic holdings were:

• “First, the Court will seal PII in the form of personal and non-public email addresses and cellphone numbers, as such information has no relevance to the substance of the motions and the public’s interest in [it] is negligible and easily outweighed by … privacy interests.”
• “Second, information revealing the specific identity of clients and prospective clients who have used public-relations services is sufficiently sensitive to warrant continued sealing. These individuals are ‘innocent third parties’ whose privacy interests ‘weigh heavily’ in the Court’s analysis…. Importantly, the identity of the clients and prospective clients revealed in the materials has no bearing on the merits of the motions.” [cleaned up].

As to the second principle, there was no dispute and Ms. Lively agreed that the identity was properly redacted.  However, the dispute was over shielding “the types of public-relations services performed for these clients….”

The court found that the presumption of public access is more weighty on dispositive motions such as this. Id. at *3.  Further, here the “types of public relations services” that he Wallace Non-Parties “are capable of providing” went to a “key contested issue in this case.”  The court wrote that “work performed for other clients in other circumstances might shed light on that issue.”

Thus, it is no answer for the Wallace Non-Parties to assert simply that they did not do what Lively alleges they did, and that therefore any such work performed for other clients or prospective clients is irrelevant. The materials are relevant precisely to assess that flat denial. As a result, certain confidential business information that has no bearing on any issue in this case and that would cause substantial harm to a party or non-party’s competitive business standing may be sealed, but the Court finds that the types of services the Wallace Non-Parties have provided—or that they have told individuals they provide—do not so qualify.

The court then addressed, in detail, specific materials. “The Court finds that the majority of the parties and non-parties’ proposed redactions are appropriate and narrowly tailored to protect PII, the identity of unrelated non-party clients and prospective clients, and competitively sensitive business materials unrelated to this case, such as information revealing competitive positions in the public-relations market and internal business strategy.”

Certain materials were ordered to be unsealed and others to remain under seal.[1]

For more on relevance redactions, see generally:

• Unopposed Motion to Seal Court Records (Dec. 8, 2024);
• Relevance Redactions Prohibited – Again (May 17, 2024);
• Relevance Redactions Rejected – Rule 26(f) Resolution (Mar. 23, 2022).

For more information on sealing documents filed in courts, see generally:

• Three Types of Protective Orders – Requirements to Seal Court Record (Sep. 27, 2024);
• Sealing of Documents Filed in Court (Mar. 7, 2023);
• Administrative Ofc. Of the Courts v. Abell Foundation, 480 Md. 63, 68-69 (2022).

For more information about discovery disputes in this and related matters, see  generally:

• My Father is a Lawyer – Are My Emails With Him Privileged? – E-Discovery LLC(Sep. 18, 2025);
• Listing a Document on a Privilege Log Concedes That it is Relevant for Discovery – E-Discovery LLC(Sep. 6, 2025);
• “Discovery on Discovery” Denied in “It Ends With Us” Lawsuit – E-Discovery LLC(Sep. 5, 2025);
• Discovery of Search Terms & Ephemeral Signal Messages – It Has Not Yet Ended “With Us” E-Discovery LLC(Aug. 30, 2025);
• Court Grants Motion to Strike Deposition Transcript Using Its “Inherent Power” – E-Discovery LLC(Aug. 11, 2025);
• Initial Disclosures Cannot Await Expert Opinions – E-Discovery LLC(Jul. 20, 2025);
• Crime-Fraud Exception to Privilege Not Shown – E-Discovery LLC(Jun. 8, 2025);
• “It Ends With Us” – E-Discovery LLC(Apr. 8, 2025).

____

[1] The court wrote as to one party: “There is an insufficient basis for redacting all search terms.”