Judge Liman Denies Jed Walllace/Street Relations' Motion For a Protective Order

Background: Lively requested that Street Relations identifies its entire client base. Street requested a protective order from the Court seeking "protection from being required to identify those names. Sharing these identities would be harmful and an undue burden because these are clients—from famous individuals and companies to private citizens—who have relied on Street to perform crisis management services". https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.974420/gov.uscourts.cacd.974420.1.1.pdf

Team Lively argued that the names are highly relevant to Lively’s claims, they are seeking to understand whether Street Relations has engaged in campaigns for other clients similar to the campaign that they alleged in this case and, in any case the existing Protective Order (agreed by all of the parties) in place provides sufficient protection https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.385.0.pdf

Judge Liman agreed with Team Lively, noting that "If Street Relations has participated in digital campaigns for other clients to harm the reputation of third parties, it is more likely to have done so here, as Lively alleges". Street Relation's motion for a protective order was DENIED. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf