Privilege Log Decision in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Justin Baldoni, et al.

Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 2025 WL 3227789 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2025), addressed privilege logs.  First, the court ordered categorical privilege log. That was challenged and the parties asserting privilege offered a document-by-document log. That was challenged and a supplemental privilege log was ordered.

Ms. Lively requested production of documents the Wayfarer Parties[1] identified on their “Signal Privilege Log.”  Defendants opposed the request.  The court wrote:

Because the Court cannot sufficiently assess many of the Wayfarer Parties’ claims of privilege based on the contents of their Privilege Log, the Wayfarer Parties are directed to file a [third] more complete log as further detailed below.

For more on the many discovery disputes in this litigation, please see How Much Attention Does a Big Case Deserve? (Nov. 22, 2025), and “Birth Video” Discovery Dispute in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Baldoni (Nov. 21, 2025)(listing additional blogs).

LOG NUMBER 1 – A CATEGORICAL LOG

Initially, in a prior decision, the court “directed the Wayfarer Parties to produce a categorical privilege log….” [emphasis added].  They did that; however, Ms. Lively then challenged it as insufficient.

LOG NUMBER 2 – A DOC-BY-DOC LOG

Next, “the Wayfarer Parties agreed to provide a document-by-document privilege log, which is now the subject of Lively’s current motion. [emphasis added].

The new log did not indicate senders and recipients but instead “lumps” the “participants” into “certain categories.”[2] It was challenged.

The court wrote that: “The [document-by-document] log provided by the Wayfarer Parties in many instances provides the Court with insufficient information to assess the claims of privilege.

The court found “conclusory assertions that these communications” were “necessary to seeking legal advice” did not meet the burden of production “when those assertions are not specifically tied to particular aspects of the litigation.”

One category of log entries was communications made “seeking legal advice regarding media strategy to support litigation objectives.” The court held that a media campaign is not litigation strategy.

While the Wayfarer Parties asserted that the messages sought legal advice, and while some of the entries were sufficient, others were too general and conclusory, stating “ongoing litigation strategy, including coordinated media and communications strategy in support of litigation objectives….” These were held to be insufficiently detailed.

As to a request for in camera review of twelve documents: “The Court holds for the reasons provided above that while some of these descriptions are adequate (e.g., those tying the communications to a specific legal issue, such as the ‘implications of communications obtained by the New York Times,’ …), others are not (e.g., those related generally to ‘evidence gathered and work product’ involving the litigation as a whole, …). In addition, once again, the log does not indicate message senders.”

LOG NO. 3 ORDERED

The court ordered a third try:

The Wayfarer Parties are therefore directed to update their Privilege Log with the information necessary to substantiate their claims of privilege, including by specifying not only chat “participants” but also message senders.

The court ruled that “[t]he Wayfarer Parties are accordingly ordered to provide an updated privilege log by November 25, 2025 substantiating their claims of privilege and addressing the deficiencies identified in this Order…. Lively shall have until December 1, 2025, to make a renewed challenge to the claims of privilege.”

MORE INFORMATION ON PRIVILEGE LOGS

For a recent discussion of privilege logs, please see Court Issues Stern Warning About Privilege Logs (Aug. 11, 2025).

For more on categorical privilege logs, please see Categorical Privilege Logs: Don’t Shoot a Mouse with an Elephant Gun (Mar 25, 2021), When is a Categorical Privilege Log Insufficient? (Jun. 20, 2024), Example of a Categorical Privilege Log (Sep. 23, 2024), Categorical Privilege Log Presented Interpretive Issues (Nov. 17, 2021).

For information on how to create one, please see How to Create a “Metadata” or “Metadata Plus” Log Using a Litigation Review Platform (Aug. 7, 2024).

For use of a log on merits issues, please see Privilege Log Helps Defeat Summary Judgment on One Count (Jun. 24, 2025)

For information on adequacy of privilege logs, please see  Privilege Log Deemed Partially Inadequate (Jun. 19, 2025), Privilege Log Entry That Document is “A-C Privileged and/or Work Product” Held Insufficient (Aug. 28, 2024), How Much Detail is Enough in a Privilege Log? (Apr. 9, 2024).

For exceptions to the need for a privilege log, please see No Privilege Log is Necessary in Limited Circumstances When Discovery Requests Are Overbroad (Apr. 5, 2025), Where Requests for Discovery were Overly Broad, No Privilege Log was Required (Oct. 12, 2024), No Privilege Log Is Needed While Scope of Discovery Objections Are Pending (Aug. 3, 2024), Do You Have to Ask an Opponent for a Privilege Log? (Jan. 25, 2024), When is Failure to Provide a Timely Privilege Log Excusable? (Jun. 24, 2024).

See generally, Privilege Logs, Null Sets, Search Strings, and Number of Custodians in One Decision (Jan. 27 2025).

____

[1] The Wayfarer Parties are Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Melissa Nathan, The Agency Group PR LLC, and Jennifer Abel.

[2] Many litigation review platforms have a “participants” field that includes senders, recipients, and blind copies.