Blake Blake and Justin BalouniLegal teams spoke while waiting for the judge’s request about the actress’s request to obtain a stronger preventive order.

On Thursday, March 6, a listening session, La Flei’s lawyer claimed that the Balmouni team “created the incorrect disclosure of information.”

“We want to stop the publication of this information, in the case, during the discovery. The actress’s lawyer said during a Thursday session:” The rules are trying to prevent the burden on third parties. “We should not make dozens of third parties running to the court for protection. We are supposed to say the burden on third parties. It must drop the third party’s call against the security company that protects vital and Rynolds. “

Bian Friedman41 -year -old lawyer, in his own statement before the judge.

Related to: Blake Levli criticizes Justin’s “lack of respect” for the victims of the harassment

In a new file obtained by the United States, Wikley, Blake Livley is launching again after being accused of trying to “prevent the audience” from seeing “relevant evidence” in her legal battle against Justin in the blog. After the last Lively request to obtain an improved preventive order – which requested the condition of “Lawyer’s Eyes only” to maintain certain information […]

“These are issues” for the lawyer’s restrictions only. “This is a case in which no one has any intention to harm Mrs. Levli in any way. She detailed the requests of sexual harassment and put them there. My customers have been decided as a guilty right when this was presented. My client has the right to fight and defend himself. We want to agree on the protection matter and put the burden on the party, who wants to protect more, to go to the court And it is transparent. “

The Livley team wanted to protect its own correspondence with “prominent individuals”.

“There is a great opportunity for an irreplaceable damage if the marginal conversations with prominent individuals who are not related to the case will fall into the wrong hands,” she claimed.

“We cannot treat celebrities, and strong people in the industry differently from others.” Friedman answered.

While no official ruling was issued on Thursday, the judge participated in the decision “soon”.

The news broke out in February, 37, and her husband, Ryan Reynoldsand I asked Po stronger From the criterion they were granted when it was End with us Costar Baldoni first submitted their claims.

“As is detailed in the modified complaint of Mrs. Livly, Mrs. Livly, her family, other members of the actors, different real witnesses, and individuals who publicly spoke to the support of Mrs. Livly have received violent, sexual bias, and threatened specifications,”

Livly previously called the Balaoun in a lawsuit in December 2024, claiming that he harassed her sexual and strengthened a “hostile work environment” in the 2024 Group It ends with us. she She modified her complaint Last month, in detail the alleged “emotional influence” it faces from legal repercussions.

Related to: Justin’s lawyer interacts with a debt with Blake LVLEL’s request

Brian Friedman, Justin’s lawyer, responded to the blog of Blake Livley’s request to obtain a gag something in the ongoing legal case about filming it. “The paradox has not been lost on anyone that Mrs. Livly is so free from the truth that she moved to a gag,” Friedman […]

“The emotional influence on Mrs. Livly was severe, not only affecting her, but her family, including her husband and four children,” was obtained by the court documents obtained we Read. “There are days when she was struggling to get out of the bed, and she often chooses not to adventure abroad.”

Lively also claimed that she had received several letters of violent social media amid legal drama. He denied all allegations. It is too I filed a defamation suit Against Levli and Reynolds earlier this year. (At the same time, the couple denied the accusations.)

“Anyone who receives violent messages by unknown parties is hateful. When private parties were accused by Lively and their paid team of errors, they received death threats and continuous visits to private homes where young children held after their headlines leaked on their initial complaints. we In a February statement on the request for the protection order for the effectiveness of the Levli. “No one should face this, especially the private parties that do not have the means of a seat joint. We do not condone the dangerous speech that targets anyone regardless of the situation.”