Latest news with #FederalRulesofCivilProcedure
NZ Herald
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- NZ Herald
Justin Baldoni's legal team hit back at Blake Lively over deposition location request
The response ended: 'Although Lively's foot-stomping and use of her celebrity status may have enabled her to seize control of the film, which is the crux of this dispute, her counsel's tantrum has no place in this court. Lively is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure like every litigant...' Blake's request came after a lawyer for Baldoni – whose counterclaims against Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for extortion and defamation were dismissed last month – previously said he wanted the deposition to be taken in public for people to see. Attorney Bryan Freedman told People magazine in May: 'Hold the deposition at MSG, sell tickets or stream it, and donate every dollar to organisations helping victims of domestic abuse.' Following the court filing, Lively's representatives hit out at the 41-year-old actor's team. They told People magazine: 'Ms Lively is looking forward to her deposition next week, and it should follow the same rules as every other witness in this case. 'Justin Baldoni's lawyer has tried to make this matter a public spectacle at every turn, even proposing to sell tickets to a televised deposition at Madison Square Garden. 'This is a serious matter of sexual harassment and retaliation and it deserves to be treated as such.' The new filing revealed Lively, 37, asked the judge to block Baldoni and his team from selecting where the deposition takes place. Her lawyers wrote: '[Baldoni's team have] not denied that their intent is to manufacture a harassing publicity stunt by requiring Ms Lively to parade through paparazzi, or by inviting unknown attendees to the deposition, including members of the media or social media influencers, or any other number of abusive tactics. 'Since virtually the inception of this litigation, Defendants have used even the prospect of Ms Lively's deposition to generate press interest. 'The high-profile nature of this litigation, and the nature of Ms Lively's retaliation claims, demonstrates a substantial risk of the deposition turning into a publicity event and potentially attracting interested individuals who could pose security risks.' The Another Simple Favour star's lawyers insisted the filing was a 'reasonable request to prevent the risk of annoyance, harassment, and verbal or physical threats,' and alleged Baldoni's team 'appear to seek another public relations moment, or to create conditions for intimidation or harassment'. A trial is set for March 2026.
Newsweek
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Newsweek
Justin Baldoni Rips Blake Lively Over Legal Team 'Tantrum'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Justin Baldoni hit back at Blake Lively's request regarding her deposition location amid their ongoing legal battle. Merriam-Webster defines "deposition" as "a testifying especially before a court." Newsweek reached out to lawyers for Baldoni and Lively via email for comment on Monday. The Context In December, Lively, 37, filed a complaint against her It Ends With Us co-star and director Baldoni, 41, accusing him of sexual harassment on the set. Baldoni and production company Wayfarer Studios responded by filing a $400 million countersuit against her, her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist, Leslie Sloane. The filing, which accused the parties of defamation, mismanagement, extortion and more, was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman last month, as Lively's accusations were legally protected. Baldoni also sued The New York Times for $250 million for publishing Lively's story about events on set, which he believed relied on her "self-serving narrative." The newspaper defended its reporting, stating at the time, according to CNN, that the article was "meticulously and responsibly reported" and "based on a review of thousands of pages of original documents." That lawsuit was also dismissed. Justin Baldoni attends The CW Network's 2016 Upfront at The London Hotel on May 19, 2016, in New York City. Blake Lively attends the "It Ends With Us" UK Gala Screening at the Odeon Luxe... Justin Baldoni attends The CW Network's 2016 Upfront at The London Hotel on May 19, 2016, in New York City. Blake Lively attends the "It Ends With Us" UK Gala Screening at the Odeon Luxe Leicester Square on August 8, 2024, in London. Morefor The CW;for Sony Pictures What To Know In a new filing, Baldoni's team argued that this week's deposition should be held at their office, rather than Lively's lawyer's office one mile away, because they may need to consult hundreds of pages of notes, the Daily Mail reported. They also have access to a conference room. Lively's team, however, said the meeting should take place at their office because of paparazzi fears. "Although Lively's foot-stomping and use of her celebrity status may have enabled her to seize control of the film, which is the crux of this dispute, her counsel's tantrum has no place in this Court," Baldoni's team said. "Lively is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure like every litigant." Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively on the set of "It Ends With Us" on January 12, 2024, in Jersey City, New Jersey. Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively on the set of "It Ends With Us" on January 12, 2024, in Jersey City, New Jersey. Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images What People Are Saying Justin Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, suggested Lively's deposition be held in front of an audience, per TMZ: "If Blake Lively is really serious about testifying for the world to see, let's live stream it in Madison Square Garden and give the money to the domestic violence survivors." Blake Lively's lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, fired back at Freedman, telling People: "Justin Baldoni's lawyer has tried to make this matter a public spectacle at every turn, even proposing to sell tickets to a televised deposition at Madison Square Garden. This is a serious matter of sexual harassment and retaliation, and it deserves to be treated as such." What Happens Next The deposition is scheduled for July 17, and their trial is set for March 2026.
Perth Now
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Justin Baldoni's legal team hit back at 'foot-stomping' Blake Lively
Justin Baldoni's legal team have blasted Blake Lively's "foot-stomping and use of her celebrity status". The former Gossip Girl star is suing her It Ends With Us co-star and director for sexual harassment and retaliation and after she filed a motion requesting her deposition takes place in her own lawyer's office to prevent potential paparazzi attention if she went to Justin's attorney's office, his side have hit back in their response to the request. According to TMZ, Justin and his team argued Blake had provided no evidence to back her point and insisted it couldn't be an issue of cost as the two offices are only around a mile apart. The lawyers also claimed moving the deposition away from their own offices would put them at a disadvantage because they will need to consult with hundreds of pages of notes and may need a separate conference room for private discussions during the meeting. The response ended: "Although Lively's foot-stomping and use of her celebrity status may have enabled her to seize control of the film, which is the crux of this dispute, her counsel's tantrum has no place in this Court. Lively is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure like every litigant..." Blake's request came after a lawyer for Justin - whose counterclaims against Blake and her husband Ryan Reynolds for extortion and defamation were dismissed last month - previously said he wanted the deposition to be taken in public for people to see. Attorney Bryan Freedman told People magazine in May: 'Hold the deposition at MSG, sell tickets or stream it, and donate every dollar to organizations helping victims of domestic abuse." Following the court filing, Blake's representatives hit out at the 41-year-old actor's team. They told People magazine: 'Ms. Lively is looking forward to her deposition next week, and it should follow the same rules as every other witness in this case. 'Justin Baldoni's lawyer has tried to make this matter a public spectacle at every turn, even proposing to sell tickets to a televised deposition at Madison Square Garden,. "This is a serious matter of sexual harassment and retaliation and it deserves to be treated as such.' The new filing revealed Blake, 37, asked the judge to block Justin and his team from selecting where the deposition takes place. Her lawyers wrote: "[Baldoni's team have] not denied that their intent is to manufacture a harassing publicity stunt by requiring Ms. Lively to parade through paparazzi, or by inviting unknown attendees to the deposition, including members of the media or social media influencers, or any other number of abusive tactics. 'Since virtually the inception of this litigation, Defendants have used even the prospect of Ms. Lively's deposition to generate press interest. 'The high-profile nature of this litigation, and the nature of Ms. Lively's retaliation claims, demonstrates a substantial risk of the deposition turning into a publicity event and potentially attracting interested individuals who could pose security risks." The Another Simple Favor star's lawyers insisted the filing was a "reasonable request to prevent the risk of annoyance, harassment, and verbal or physical threats," and alleged Justin's team 'appear to seek another public relations moment, or to create conditions for intimidation or harassment.' A trial is set to take place in March 2026.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Trump's birthright citizenship ban faces new problem: Class actions
When the Supreme Court ruled in President Trump's favor two weeks ago in a case arising from his efforts to ban birthright citizenship, he called the decision 'a monumental victory.' But the victory may turn out to be short-lived. To be sure, the 6-to-3 ruling severely limited a key tool federal trial judges had used in checking executive power — universal injunctions that applied not only to the plaintiffs but also to everyone else affected by the challenged program nationwide. But the justices made clear that another important tool remained available — class actions, which let people facing a common problem band together in a single lawsuit to obtain nationwide relief. The differences between the two procedures may at first blush seem technical. But universal injunctions have long been criticized across the ideological spectrum as a judicial power grab without a basis in law. Class actions, on the other hand, are an established mechanism whose requirements are set out in detail in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Joseph N. Laplante, a federal judge in New Hampshire, embraced class actions on Thursday, opening a new front in the battle to deny Mr. Trump's effort to redefine who can become a citizen. The move was also a new sign that Mr. Trump's win at the Supreme Court may turn out to be less lasting than it at first appeared. The judge provisionally certified a class of all children born to parents who are in the United States temporarily or without authorization. Then he entered a preliminary injunction in their favor barring the enforcement of Mr. Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. It applied nationwide. That means Mr. Trump's executive order, which has never come into effect and may never will, remains blocked. The ban would upend the conventional understanding of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' A White House spokesman called Judge Laplante's ruling 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' But the court's decision specifically contemplated the alternative, and it gave challengers 30 days to pursue it and other options. The key difference between universal injunctions and class actions is that the former is a shortcut that benefits parties and bystanders alike, letting judges provide relief to people who are not before them. A class action, by contrast, brings into the lawsuit everyone similarly situated to the lead plaintiffs, but only if they meet criteria detailed in the rules. Judges must certify a class based on several factors in the rules. If they do, their rulings apply to all class members. Legal experts said class actions are well suited to address questions like the one posed by the proposed birthright citizenship ban. 'The goal of the class action is to generate a single answer to a recurring problem,' said William B. Rubenstein, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a treatise on class actions. 'And there's at least one legal question in this case that applies to everybody across the country, which is the constitutionality of the approach.' Mila Sohoni, a law professor at Stanford, said that 'even after the Supreme Court's recent restriction on universal injunctions, the class action remains as an essential mechanism for courts to address constitutional violations of this scope and urgency.' After an appeals court considers the matter, the New Hampshire case will very likely head to the Supreme Court. The court has so far not addressed whether Mr. Trump's executive order is constitutional. The Trump administration may well ask the justices to take up only the threshold issue of whether the mechanism the judge used is legal while again ducking the more fundamental constitutional question. There is reason to think that this time the justices will say the tool used to block the ban was lawful. When the birthright citizenship case was argued in May, several of the justices seemed taken by the idea that class actions have a role to play. Class actions were, Professor Sohoni wrote in a newsletter at the time, 'the breakout star of the oral argument.' Class actions came up at least 35 times. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said they could provide 'a mechanism to do what's needed here in terms of getting relief to people.' He added that even a putative class action — one merely proposed by the plaintiffs and untested by the courts — may be enough to allow a court to issue an injunction blocking a government program. It was not clear at the time why that particular issue was on his mind. But it turned out that the justices were at work on an order concerning the administration's efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants using the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law. The order, issued the day after the argument, did precisely what Justice Kavanaugh had contemplated. The majority barred the migrants' removal, explaining that 'courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class,' here two detainees said to be members of Tren de Aragua, a violent gang, and 'similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas.' The court shielded them from deportation without deciding 'whether a class should be certified.' The move was unusual because courts do not generally provide a class of people relief until they have considered who belongs in the class. It did not sit well with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who filed a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'The federal rules do not permit such a shortcut,' he wrote. Last month, when the court issued its decision in the birthright citizenship case, Justice Alito returned to the fray. In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas, he warned that the lower courts should not simply replace universal injunctions with class actions. 'District courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of class-action rules, he wrote. 'Otherwise,' he added, 'the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief,' and today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.' Brian Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt and the author of 'The Conservative Case for Class Actions,' said he had 'grave misgivings about these quick-and-dirty provisional class certifications,' adding that 'they recreate all of the problems of universal injunctions under a different name.' 'But,' he added, 'the Supreme Court has already blessed this approach by doing it itself,' in the Venezuelan migrant case. 'So the district judge in New Hampshire can certainly be forgiven,' Professor Fitzpatrick said. 'Indeed, the judge was more conscientious than the court.' Judge Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, issued a 38-page decision on Thursday methodically analyzing the four factors required by the rules governing class actions and provisionally concluding they supported a national class. The class was sufficiently numerous, he wrote, as 'the executive order would deny citizenship to thousands of children.' The case presented a common question 'about the constitutionality and lawfulness of the executive order.' The lead plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the rest of the class, he wrote. And their lawyers, including ones from the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the judge wrote, 'have sufficient experience and qualifications to serve as class counsel.' Should the Supreme Court rule that the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order can be tested in a class action, it will represent a shift, as the court has sometimes been hostile to such suits. In 2011, for instance, it threw out an enormous employment discrimination class action against Walmart that had sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female workers, saying that the
The Intercept
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
How The Intercept Fought Courts to Reveal Key Evidence in Student Deportation Cases
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Mohsen Mahdawi speaks during an interview at the ACLU of Vermont on Thursday, May 8, 2025, in Montpelier, Vt. Photo: AP Photo / Alex Driehaus The Trump administration's efforts to deport students and campus activists have been cloaked in secrecy, whether it's the masked agents that snatched Rümeysa Öztürk off the streets, the arrest of Mohsen Mahdawi at what should have been his citizenship interview, or the government's shifting legal arguments to detain them. The troubling lack of transparency extended to court battles, too. In the cases of both Öztürk and Mahdawi, an obscure court rule required an in-person visit to a Vermont federal courthouse to review key materials, including the Trump administration's briefs and exhibits defending their detention. These cases are critical tests of free speech and the constitutional limits on targeting noncitizens over their dissent. So The Intercept fought to make the full dockets public. So far, we've been successful in eight federal courts, six districts, and two federal appellate circuits — and we're doing the same in other cases across the country. Here's how we're doing it. In every case, The Intercept started by reaching out to the plaintiff's legal team. The docket access restrictions in these historic court cases come from Rule 5.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which aims to protect immigrants' privacy as they challenge detention and deportation orders in court. This means that the strongest argument in favor of lifting the restrictions is that the plaintiffs themselves want the public to have full access to court filings, or at least don't oppose it. In some cases, the plaintiffs and their legal teams were already publishing court documents online, although there was often a lag between when a document was filed in court and when it was accessible to the press. After The Intercept reached out, many plaintiffs filed motions to lift the docket restrictions, including Öztürk and class-action plaintiffs challenging their deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Judges quickly granted many of these motions. In other cases, The Intercept sent letters to the judges and clerks to underscore the importance of court transparency and urge them to lift the restrictions. Some judges and clerks ignored these letters, while others took these concerns quite seriously. In one pivotal case regarding arbitrary visa revocations, for example, federal district judge Ana Reyes noted The Intercept's request on the case docket and asked if there was any opposition to making records in the case available to the public. When the plaintiff and the government confirmed there was no objection, Reyes ordered the clerk to lift the docket restrictions. In May, The Intercept sent similar letters to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals about the Öztürk and Mahdawi cases. Öztürk had previously asked the trial court to lift the restrictions, but the judge didn't rule on that request before the Trump administration appealed. The Second Circuit clerk's office quickly docketed The Intercept's letters, and within two days the full appellate record was publicly accessible in both cases. Soon after, the trial court judges lifted the restrictions in both cases, too. Finally, in some cases, opening dockets to the public required The Intercept to file formal court motions. In the case of Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian woman who is still in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention in Texas, The Intercept filed a motion with pro bono representation from the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. In Massachusetts federal court, The Intercept filed a motion in the case of Efe Ercelik, a Turkish student at Hampshire College, with pro bono representation from Albert Sellars LLP. And most recently, in late June, The Intercept filed a motion in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case of Badar Khan Suri, a scholar at Georgetown University, with pro bono help from attorneys at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. In each case, judges quickly lifted restrictions following The Intercept's motions. As the Trump administration continues its historic deportation campaign and targets immigrants for their dissent, new cases are being filed everyday with similar docket restrictions under Rule 5.2(c). And The Intercept is working to ensure the public and other members of the press have full, transparent access to court records in these historic battles over dissent, immigrants' rights, and state power. Join The Conversation
