Image: Holley Robinson, EDRM.
The answer is “Popcorned Planet, Inc., moves to quash a subpoena for documents served by Blake Lively, who responds in opposition.” Popcorned Planet, Inc. v. Lively, 2025 WL 3458601 (M.D. Fl. Dec. 2, 2025).
The court wrote that: “This matter relates to Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-10049-LJL, which is pending in the Southern District of New York.” For a series of blogs on prior discovery issues, please see Decision on 557 Requests for Admission in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Parties/Justin Baldoni (Dec. 3, 2025), and blogs cited in that article.
The substantive allegations are complex. Summarizing what is alleged, it is claimed in pertinent part that there was an organized campaign of retaliation against Ms. Lively that allegedly included “third-party advocates willing to provide a potential quote or engage with reporters” on behalf of Baldoni and others and “the seeding of content on traditional and social media platforms.” The court wrote that:
According to Lively, the defendants “directly engaged with media platforms to overwhelm and confuse the public’s understanding of Ms. Lively’s allegations and to drive negative sentiment against Ms. Lively and anyone who supports her or speaks out against Mr. Baldoni.”… The defendants allegedly “seeded social media content with content creators, on online chat sites like Reddit, and into publications with small audiences and lax editorial standards; the team would then amplify that content by sharing them” with larger publications.
What is Popcorned Planet? The court wrote that “Popcorned Planet is little more than a YouTube channel.” Its founder and CEO described it as a “publicly accessible news and commentary channel with nearly 1 million subscribers and a large daily viewership, hosted on Popcorned Planet’s designated YouTube channel.” Mr. Andy Signore reported that he is the “main host” and an “investigative reporter.” The court wrote that Popcorn Planet was formed as a Florida for-profit corporation for the purpose of “media production.” It explained that “Signore describes the channel’s content as ‘news videos’ some of which feature legal experts to comment on high-profile court cases involving celebrities.” Further, Mr. Signore “claims that the content published by Popcorned Planet constitutes ‘news’ because that content is information of public concern, ‘namely, in the categories of entertainment, culture, and current events.’”
The court explained that: “In the amended motion to quash, Popcorned Planet argues that the subpoena seeks material covered by the journalist’s privilege, that Lively cannot overcome the privilege, and that the subpoena imposes an undue burden because Lively could obtain the documents from the defendants.”
The court held that application of either the Florida or federal journalism privilege would yield the same result. It is a qualified privilege. “[A] party seeking to overcome the privilege [must] show clearly and specifically (1) that the information is ‘relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought,’ (2) that ‘the information cannot be obtained from alternative sources,’ and (3) that ‘[a] compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.’” [citations omitted].
The court held that: (1) Popcorned Planet failed to show that the journalist’s privilege applied; (2) it was waived; and, (3) Ms. Lively overcame it. The Motion to Quash the subpoena was denied.
THERE WAS NO PRIVILEGE AND ANY PRIVILEGE WAS WAIVED
As to whether the journalist privilege applied, the Popcorn Planet court wrote repeatedly that there was a failure of proof. For example, “Signore says nothing about how Popcorned Planet fits within the meaning of these [statutory] terms.” It discussed arguments that were made “without analysis….” For example, it wrote:
However, a YouTube channel such as Popcorned Planet is clearly not a “newspaper” or “news magazine” under a plain and ordinary meaning of those terms…. Neither does Popcorned Planet readily fit the terms “news agency,” “press association,” “wire service,” “radio or television station,” or “network.” That leaves “news journal,” which also appears to exclude from its plain and ordinary meaning a YouTube channel.
The court also raised a number of other definitional issues that precluded application of the journalist’s privilege. Further, it questioned whether Mr. Signore “was engaged in newsgathering at the time that he obtained the information.”
Additionally, there were defects in the privilege log, and: “An in camera review of documents included in the privilege log demonstrates the problem with Popcorned Planet’s generic and conclusory privilege log.”
Next, the court wrote: “Even if the inadequate privilege log caused no waiver, Popcorned Planet’s production of documents has…. Popcorned Planet provides no information about why some inquiries are privileged and other, similar inquiries are not.”
Ms. LIVELY OVERCAME ANY PRIVILEGE
If there was a qualified privilege, the court held that Ms. Lively overcame it: “The requests in Lively’s subpoena are directly relevant and material to her claim that the defendants in the underlying action orchestrated a campaign to defame her with the help of third parties who created disparaging and false content…. Furthermore, an in camera review reveals that the responsive materials are directly relevant and material to Livley’s claim. Lively further establishes that she tried to discover this information from the defendants and, to some extent, has been unable to obtain these materials from them. Lively demonstrates a compelling need because these materials go to the ‘heart of the matter,’ that is, the primary theory underlying Lively’s defamation claim.” [emphasis added].
The requests in Lively’s subpoena are directly relevant and material to her claim… Lively demonstrates a compelling need because these materials go to the ‘heart of the matter,’ that is, the primary theory underlying Lively’s defamation claim.
Popcorned Planet, Inc. v. Lively, 2025 WL 3458601 (M.D. Fl. Dec. 2, 2025).
THERE WAS NO UNDUE BURDEN ON POPCORN PLANET
In rejecting an undue burden claim, the Popcorn Planet court made several points. First, Popcorn Planet’s attorney admitted to not having discussed scope or search with Ms. Lively. Second, the court gave Popcorn Planet’s counsel the opportunity to raise objections. Counsel responded “’I don’t have a problem with the scope’ and affirmed that his only concern was with privilege.” Third, “[e]ven if [Ms. Lively was] required [to exhaust all other sources of information before pursuing third-party discovery, and she was not], Lively has attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain the same communications from the defendants in the underlying case.”
The Motion to Quash was denied and production ordered.
