1:24-cv-10049
S.D.N.Y.Aug 8, 2025Background
- Blake Lively (Plaintiff) brought suit in the Southern District of New York against multiple parties, including Wayfarer Studios and others ("Wayfarer Parties").
- A dispute arose after the Wayfarer Parties' counsel filed a letter attaching the entire 292-page, uncertified transcript of Lively’s deposition, in response to Liner Freedman's motion to quash a subpoena.
- Lively claimed that only a small excerpt from the deposition was relevant and that attaching the full transcript served no legal purpose but rather a strategic media/public relations one.
- The sealed transcript's broad filing forced Lively to defend continued sealing, which she contended was a tactic to suggest she feared publicity of her testimony.
- The Wayfarer Parties cited only a brief portion of the deposition but included the entire transcript in their public filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attachment of the full deposition was improper and should be stricken | Inclusion was for strategic media purposes; irrelevant to issues at hand | Routine to attach deposition testimony; Rule 12(f) inapplicable; not abusive, improper, or libelous | Attachment served no litigation purpose and was improper; motion to strike granted |
| Does the Court have inherent power to strike non-pleading papers? | Court has authority to strike abusive/improper filings | Rule 12(f) only applies to pleadings; court typically would not strike other papers | Court has both power and responsibility to strike such filings if improper |
| Whether only narrowly relevant portions should be unsealed | Only the directly cited pages should be public | Entire transcript should be available, not just cited pages | Only necessary portions to be unsealed; limited deposition excerpt to be filed |
| Is there precedent for courts barring filings made for press/scandal purposes? | Cited prior pattern of improper filings; courts can prevent scandal | No explicit argument on this point | Filings should not be used to promote public scandal; court intervenes |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (recognizing courts’ inherent power to manage their own proceedings)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (articulating scope of inherent judicial power)
- Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (emphasizing courts' responsibilities to oversee their dockets and prevent public scandal)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (warning against use of court files for public scandal or private spite)
- Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402 (affirming courts’ authority over their dockets)