In this episode, I am exploring why celebrity culture feels different now...not because the glamour is gone, but because we understand too much about how image-making works behind the scenes. That understanding becomes especially important when celebrity narratives collide with the courtroom.

This week’s Civil Disorder segment focuses heavily on the ongoing Lively litigation, as the court prepares for a pivotal hearing that could dramatically reshape (or even end) the case. A major development precedes that hearing: the judge’s decision on what evidence will remain sealed and what the public will finally be allowed to see.

The episode breaks down why sealing evidence is unusual, what the law actually says about public access to court records, and why the distinction between confidential and private information matters more than most people realize. From discovery disputes to deposition secrecy, this case raises serious questions about transparency, litigation strategy, and whether selective secrecy has been used to shape public perception.

Tune In to Hear:

• Why celebrity culture feels less glamorous (and more strategic) than ever
• What the Lively case reveals about sealing evidence and court transparency
• The legal difference between confidential and private information
• Why Blake Lively’s deposition matters and why not seeing it is unusual
• How judges decide what the public has a right to see in civil cases
• What deposition testimony reveals about credibility before trial
• Why Ryan Reynolds and agency communications may become public
• How litigation can be misused to create headlines instead of justice
• Why free speech protects more than most Americans realize
• How defamation and discrimination claims fit into First Amendment law
• Why bad speech isn’t fixed by more laws but by more speech
• What to watch for ahead of the upcoming court hearing

Want to go deeper?

If you want deeper dives, bonus episodes, and some very honest work-and-life talk, come hang out with me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/notactuallygolden/membership

Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden

In this episode, I’m walking you through what to expect from the upcoming January 22 court hearing in the Blake Lively v. Wayfarer case and, more importantly, what that hearing is not.

This episode focuses on the dispositive motions that could end the case before it ever reaches a jury. While headlines frame these motions as an attempt to “deny Blake Lively her day in court,” the reality is far more routine. In civil litigation (especially employment cases) summary judgment and judgment-on-the-pleadings motions are not only common, they are expected.

The episode breaks down the major legal questions the court must resolve, including whether California law can apply to conduct that occurred in New York, whether Blake Lively was legally an employee or an independent contractor, and whether procedural missteps before filing suit could be fatal to her claims.

Tune in to hear:

• What dispositive motions are and why they’re filed in most civil cases
• Why this hearing is unusual and why the judge likely requested oral argument
• How judges use oral argument to identify appeal-proof rulings
• The eight major legal issues the court must decide
• Whether California law can apply to a New York-based film production
• Why employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) matters so much
• How pre-suit filing requirements could eliminate the case entirely
• Why the unsigned actor loan-out agreement is central to nearly every issue
• How damages limitations could undercut key claims
• What the evidence spoliation motion is really trying to accomplish
• Why this case could end without any factual findings at all

Want to go deeper?

If you want deeper dives, bonus episodes, and some very honest work-and-life talk, come hang out with me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/notactuallygolden/membership

Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden

This episode is a comprehensive, lawyer-level walkthrough of the Blake Lively employment discrimination lawsuit, designed to help listeners finally understand what actually matters (legally) in a case that has been buried under headlines, hot takes, and viral misinformation.

From the very beginning, this case has been publicly framed as something it is not. It is not a criminal case. It is not a social media trial. And it is not a referendum on whether Blake Lively is “likable.” At its core, this is an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit arising out of a workplace…the set of It Ends With Us.

Tune in to hear:

• Why this case is an employment discrimination lawsuit, not a criminal case
• The legal difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment
• How retaliation claims work and why harassment does not have to be proven first
• What makes this case highly unusual compared to typical workplace cases
• Why leaked texts and emails are not “facts” in the legal sense
• How the New York Times article and Vanzan subpoena changed public perception
• What discovery revealed and what remains sealed from public view
• Why online smear campaigns are not illegal on their own
• How causation determines whether a claim survives or fails
• What the upcoming dispositive motions could mean for the future of the case

Want to go deeper?

If you want deeper dives, bonus episodes, and some very honest work-and-life talk, come hang out with me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/notactuallygolden/membership

Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden