Justin records the big victory over Blake Livley in court

Lawyers and Leville’s lawyers went to each other during a court session before the trial on Monday, with Judge Luis Lehman’s threat to continue the trial away.

Blake Livley and Justin Baldouni were imprisoned in a bitter legal battle because the actress was accused of inferior sexual harassment, which paid a $ 400 million suit of the actor.

The judge, who heads the legal battle between Blake Levli and “ends with us”, denied Justin in the blog, his request to put an order to a lady on the one hand.

Livley and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, have asked the court to issue a preventive order to prevent a lawyer, Brian Friedman, to engage in “inappropriate behavior”, including going to a “media and harassment and revenge campaign” against them.

In their request, they claimed that Friedman was “violating the rules of the court that prevents the lawyer from making data to the press that has nothing to do with a case and may affect the jury.”

However, Judge Lehman rejected the couple’s request and said instead that he would adopt a base for lawyers known as Al Qaeda 3.6, which prevents the two parties from making external data that could affect jury.

Lehman said, according to Daily Mail. “They both said a lot in the pleadings that give the audience a lot to address.”

It was a hot relationship in the pre -trial, as Friedman and Jotleb continued to take excavations on each other.

Gottlieb criticized Friedman’s comments outside the field, claiming that they attacked “character, integrity and honesty” Levli. “

However, Friedman told him that they “started” with New York Times condition.

After Judge Leman directed the adoption of Al Qaeda 3.6, Friedman tried to protest, saying: “He does not seem to be a four -year -old child,” but they started, “but once someone says something that becomes a reality, there is no way to fight against him. .

“It begins to lose things without the ability to rule the court. This has not started from us,” Feridman added.

At the court session, Livly’s lawyer stated that he would seek a preventive order for future files to protect celebrity friends.

Although no name has been mentioned, Balouni previously referred to Taylor Swift in a 400 million dollar counter -claim against the “Gossip Girl” star, accusing her of trying to use her famous power to kidnap his movie.

“We believe that there will be judgments in a preventive matter that will be appropriate in this case, given the nature of allegations and the prominent nature of some individuals who will participate,” said Gutliplab.

“There are a large number of prominent individuals on both sides,” he added. “In particular, addressing the interests and needs of third parties will be very important in this case.”

Gottlieb noted that he will plan to “search for protection that we believe will be very important, especially in the event that there is a great deal of leaked materials”, suggests a preventive matter.

The judge agreed with him and said that even before the other parties, I have already got many prominent people. ” A lawyer also stated that he would be ready to agree to the matter.

Meanwhile, he appealed to the Balouni team to move forward forward because he revealed that his clients were “suffering greatly.”

He told the court: “We will really urge the court to allow the discovery to be discovered and move forward because the damage it suffers from has suffered since the emergence of the New York Times.”

He revealed that the Baldouni production company has lost “hundreds of millions of dollars” since the legal war began, and Melissa Nathan has suffered public relations with the inferiority, from the loss of customers.

“When matters strike the press, especially the New York Times, people sometimes interact before there is a judicial design. These parties suffer greatly,” I explained. “It is very important from our customer’s point of view to get a future living to go forward as quickly as possible.”

It may seem that the tensions between the warring parties may ease as Judge Leman has warned that he could move at the time of the trial forward from March next year if they do not act.

He said, “I will not do that, I am convinced that the parties need time to discover.”

“But if it turns out that this ends with the litigation in the press in a way that would prevent the opportunity of a fair trial … one of the tools that the court has is to accelerate the date of the trial.”

Judge Leman warned: “This is something that exists. I don’t want to do it.”