Publicity and PII concerns
The brief says Baldoni’s motion triggered negative press and online harassment, in part because it publicly disclosed addresses Baldoni claimed could be Ferrer’s, plus other non-party PII such as phone numbers and license plates—contrary, she says, to the court’s practice of sealing or redacting non-party PII (pp. 7–8, 13–14). That PII point lands against a backdrop where the court has already warned parties about filings that fuel scandal.
Sanctions request
Invoking Rule 45(d)(1), Ferrer asks the court to shift fees for the burden of opposing a motion she calls baseless and PR-driven, and for a subpoena she says is facially overbroad (pp. 16–17).
Where the larger case stands
Reporting and public filings confirm Lively’s claims of harassment and retaliation (denied by Baldoni) are headed to trial in March 2026, barring settlement. The judge has already dismissed the Wayfarer parties’ sweeping countersuit, narrowing their posture in this feud.
The road ahead
Expect a simple, fact-bound ruling: either Baldoni shows real diligence to personally serve a verified address or he doesn’t. Parallel skirmishes over PR tactics will continue to matter, though—especially in a case where the court has already chastised filings that appear crafted for headlines rather than litigation needs.
🛑 It should be noted that the assertions in the lawsuit filings described above are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law.
