Blake Lively’s INSANE Damages Claim, with Baldoni Lawyer Bryan Freedman, Plus D4vd’s Horrific Amazon Order, and “No Body” Yacht Murders

Summary

MK True Crime: "Blake Lively’s INSANE Damages Claim"

Featuring: Matt Murphy (host, former homicide prosecutor), Mark Geragos (co-host, criminal defense attorney), Special Guest Bryan Freedman (Baldoni attorney)
Episode Date: May 1, 2026
Podcast Network: MK Media

Episode Overview

This debut episode of "In the Well," the new flagship for MK True Crime under MK Media, brings longtime frenemies Matt Murphy and Mark Geragos together for a deep-dive into the world of high-stakes litigation and shocking true crime.
Highlights include:

• The disturbing case against singer D4vd (David) regarding the murder of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez
• A legal breakdown of the upcoming Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni defamation/smear suit, featuring star attorney Bryan Freedman
• Inside stories of legendary trial lawyers, plus a behind-the-scenes look at the "No Body" yacht double homicide
  The episode alternates between grim real crime analysis, sharp legal strategy, and candid, often humorous, exchanges about the criminal justice system’s past and present.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Show Introduction and Host Backgrounds (01:05–04:33)

• Matt Murphy and Mark Geragos reminisce about their decades-long professional relationship, marked by prosecuting and defending high-profile SoCal cases.
• They pay tribute to legendary defense attorney Marshall Schulman, recalling his courtroom bravado and iconic tricks to outmaneuver prosecutors (05:06–09:17).
  • Notable quote:

    “You’re nobody in this county until Marshall Schulman has threatened to take your bar card.” — Matt Murphy [07:10]

2. The D4vd/Celeste Rivas Hernandez Case – “A Litigation Game of Chicken” (10:26–20:00)

Case Summary & New Developments (10:26–13:19)

• Newly unsealed documents and search warrants allege D4vd was in a sexual relationship with 14-year-old Celeste, killed her during a dispute, and attempted to dispose of her body using Amazon-ordered instruments.
• Discovery included evidence of child pornography and Cloud-texted admissions.

Legal Analysis – Tactics & Evidence (13:19–20:00)

• Prosecution strategy: Use of grand jury for testimony with “use immunity,” wiretaps, and compelling circumstantial evidence.

• Defense struggle: The rare convergence of insider testimony, digital trails, and forensic evidence makes defense exceedingly uphill.

  • Notable quotes:

    “There’s this myth out there that circumstantial evidence is bad evidence. As a prosecutor, give me a good circumstantial case over somebody telling the jury something any day of the week.” — Matt Murphy [18:49]
    “A good circumstantial case is harder for a defense lawyer to defend against than a direct evidence eyewitness case.” — Mark Geragos [17:40]

• Discussion around whether the DA will pursue the death penalty and the high stakes for all involved.

---

3. Blake Lively v. (formerly) Justin Baldoni: INSANE Damages & Smear Campaign (21:43–46:30)

Guest: Bryan Freedman (Baldoni’s Attorney)

Major Case Update (22:41–24:52)

• Freedman reveals:

  • Justin Baldoni no longer a named individual defendant.

  • Ten out of 13 claims dismissed; case now only involves corporate entities.

  • All direct sexual harassment claims are gone.

  • Notable quote:

    “The biggest and most important part of the case to Baldoni...was being called a sexual predator or sexual harasser. And that was unnerving on so many levels...those are gone.” — Bryan Freedman [29:27]

Damages Claim Deep Dive (25:25–29:03)

• Lively’s team claimed damages for potential involvement in a never-made sequel, citing lost earnings.

  • Freedman counters: Too speculative—no guarantee a sequel would be made or that Lively would even be cast, citing Sony execs referring to Lively as a “terrorist.”

• Mark Geragos:

  “[Lost sequel damages] would seem to me to be the most speculative type of damages. That would almost be garbage.” [27:51]

What’s Left: Smear Campaign & Surviving Claims (29:03–38:22)

• The "smear campaign" claim now dominates—alleging intentional online amplification of negative content.

• Freedman: Much of the “smear” involved simply reposting already-existing interviews and media.

• Legal complexity: Distinction between defamation, contractual obligations, and First Amendment issues explored.

  • Notable quote:

    “Are you defaming someone when... you're just being blamed for content that was older, content that is reappearing on the Internet?” — Bryan Freedman [36:41]

• The surviving claims blend contract (17-point return list), statutory (FIHA/retaliation), and online speech, with jurisdictional twists (filming in New Jersey, NY federal court, invoking CA law).

Tone & Meta-commentary

• The panelists see the case as a future law school teaching exhibit on “how not to structure venue and law decisions.”

• They reflect on the public pressure and personal toll on those entangled in high-profile accusations.

  • Freedman:

    "This case has really stood for...that you were guilty at first until you proved that you were innocent." [44:00]

Trial & Mediation (41:48–46:30)

• Trial scheduled May 18 in New York.
• Court-ordered discussions for possible mediation.
• Geragos observes: Many big cases “never settle...until they see the whites of the jurors’ eyes.” [45:29]

---

4. Legendary Law Stories & The “No Body” Yacht Murders (48:38–52:58)

“In the Well” – Show Title Origin (48:38–49:53)

• The “well” is the forbidden zone between counsel table and judge in a courtroom, with historic roots in English courts and modern bailiff protocol.

Skylar De Leon & The Hawks’ Yacht Murders (49:53–52:58)

• Matt Murphy recounts: As a young prosecutor on the notorious “no body” double yacht homicide, he received crucial encouragement from Geragos to proceed without bodies.

• The killer’s plot, pressure for tangible evidence, and the eventual successful prosecution are detailed.

  • Notable quote:

    “Don’t let [not finding the bodies] stop you. If you develop the evidence, prosecute them anyway.” — Mark Geragos (relayed by Matt Murphy) [51:02]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “You’re nobody in this county until Marshall Schulman has threatened to take your bar card.” — Matt Murphy [07:10]
• “A good circumstantial case is harder for a defense lawyer to defend against than a direct evidence, eyewitness case.” — Mark Geragos [17:40]
• “...being called a sexual predator...was unnerving on so many levels...those are gone.” — Bryan Freedman [29:27]
• “Are you defaming someone when... you're just being blamed for content that was older, content that is reappearing on the Internet?” — Bryan Freedman [36:41]
• “This case has really stood for...you were guilty at first until you proved that you were innocent.” — Bryan Freedman [44:00]
• “Don’t let [not finding the bodies] stop you. If you develop the evidence, prosecute them anyway.” — Mark Geragos (via Murphy) [51:02]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:05 — Show open: Matt & Mark's history
• 05:06 — Marshall Schulman stories
• 10:26 — D4vd murder case: new evidence & legal strategy
• 14:32 — Grand jury, wiretaps, prosecution details
• 19:08 — Is this a death penalty case?
• 21:43 — Bryan Freedman joins: Baldoni/Lively case updates
• 25:25 — Lost sequel damages discussion
• 29:03 — Surviving legal claims: smear campaign, contracts, FIHA
• 36:41 — Social media, smear, defamation intersections
• 41:48 — Venue confusion, trial start date
• 44:00 — Burdens of being publicly accused
• 48:38 — Explanation of “In the Well”
• 49:53 — “No Body” yacht murders: inside the case

---

Summary & Takeaways

• The D4vd case is a devastating cocktail of digital forensics, insider betrayal, and chilling circumstantial evidence, showing how modern prosecutions leverage technology and grand jury testimony.
• Blake Lively’s damages claim in the Baldoni case is largely gutted—sexual harassment claims dismissed, with only complex contractual and social media-based “smear” claims left for trial. The show exposes the persisting gap between public outrage and legal provability.
• Enduring lessons: The system often tries people in public long before a court rules—something that weighs heavily on defendants’ lives and careers.
• Behind the legal curtain: Candid war stories, banter, and behind-the-scenes legal tactics make this episode equal parts insightful, human, and entertaining for both trial junkies and casual listeners.

With Mark and Matt’s chemistry, and the promise of big-name guests and even bigger cases, “In the Well” launches as an essential listen for true crime and legal buffs alike.

Transcript

[Dr. Horton Advertiser]

Are you looking for the best deal on a new home? Discover the Dr. Horton home of the Week. With new construction homes now selling in ellensburg from the mid-3002, Dr. Horton has the right home at the best value for you, offering one and two story homes near Central Washington University. Your new home is within reach. So what are you waiting for? Learn more about the Dr. Horton Home of the Week. Visit drhorton.com and schedule a tour today. Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Advertiser]

If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade Pet Insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easy through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yell drop it.

[Matt Murphy]

Welcome to the first episode of in the well. I am Matt Murphy, former homicide prosecutor and I'm joined by my co host and longtime friend Mark Gerrigos, criminal defense attorney to the stars. We're going to get into the shocking allegations about how singer David murdered allegedly 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. And later we'll be joined by lawyer Brian Friedman to discuss the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni upcoming trial which I've done a deep dive on and is fascinating. I can't wait to get Mark's take on that. But first Mark, let's share why we decided to do this show together.

[Mark Geragos]

So we've known each other since before we did TV I think is fair to say. And, and we have had quite a few cases together. You were, I you're considerably younger than me but I do remember when you were a new deputy in the office. I remember also when you got promoted into the kind of the creme de la creme unit in ocda. And I do take great pride in predicting to several judges down in the Orange county on the Orange county bench back there I said this guy's got game, he's going to go somewhere.

[Matt Murphy]

So, so yeah, we, it's true. Mark and I had a bunch of cases before, before Mark got super famous and before I did anything of note ever. And so Mark belongs to one of these, this kind of dying breed of old school gentlemen defense lawyers that is much lacking in my view, in the, in the current state of the criminal justice system. And he's one of those guys that Mark would come into court and he was so damn likable and so persuasive that whenever he'd walk in and be like, damn it, I just know I'm going to drive home at the end of the day and think that he picked my pocket again. So, Mark, I appreciate that, but I

[Mark Geragos]

remember and I have told many a person that when I had a case with you, I knew that I either had to resolve it or, or I had to engage in the absolute misconduct by striking every female on the jury because the last thing I wanted was Heartthrob Murphy just having all the females vote for him.

[Matt Murphy]

In the glory of my youth. In the glory of my youth. Yeah, those were good days down there. And I'm going to, at the end of the episode, I'm going to share a funny Mark Arago story. It's the one I talked about in front of the, the Megyn Kelly crowd down in Orange county that I think everybody will appreciate. So, yeah, this is a super fun thing. Mark and I, again, we've known each other for years in Southern California, one or the other one of us, it seems like for about 10 or 15 years it was a high profile case. Mark was either defending it or I was prosecuting it. And, and I'm really looking forward to this because I love getting all the inside skinny from Mark on all the behind the scenes in LA county where I GRE grew up, but I was a DA in Orange county, so I know all the players down there and I, I know some in la, but all the juicy Hollywood stuff, all of the kind of behind the scenes intrigue. And I go to court now in LA and I'm like, I'm like a rookie lawyer all over again. I walk in, the court clerk doesn't know me, the bailiff doesn't give me a high five. So this is going to be really fun for me.

[Mark Geragos]

This whole thing you might remember, I don't know, this may be dating myself as well, but, but Orange County, I spent quite a bit of time down there because one of my mentors along with my father was, was Marshall Schulman. And Marshall Schulman made his career as an Lada prosecuting the Onion Field Killers, which Joseph Wambaugh wrote a book about. Marshall left the Lada's office, went down to Orange county and basically in the 80s and 90s owned Orange County Criminal Defense.

[Matt Murphy]

And he, he used, I've dealt With Marshall many times. Marshall was the defense lawyer on my very first appearance, Mark as a junior law clerk. And there was a thing floating around misdemeanor land back in those days among the misdemeanor deputies called the Marshall Schulman award. Whereas gave it to her. They had the same thing in la. Ours was a toilet seat. And it was, it was a. Like a booby prize to. We'd hand it out to each other, whoever was the biggest dick to a defense lawyer that week, like, whoever was the rudest. Like. And it wasn't a contest. It was giving each other crap like, you don't have to be such an a hole. It was the Marshall Schulman award because that was Marshall. Marshall was, he was tough and he was famous for walking in one day and taking the prosecutors all their papers and all their notebooks and just shoving them all off council table and sitting down and saying, this is my table. Tell me where it says the defense can't sit next to the jury. That's Marshall Schulman.

[Mark Geragos]

I will. You know, there was a. I don't know if you remember this. Marshall Schulman actually pioneered on. There are things when you plead somebody guilty, you have to fill out what's called a tall waiver. And it's a check the box for DUIs, especially to make sure you've been. You give up all of your rights. They actually pioneered something in Orange county called the Schulman adept addendum. And the Schulman addendum was because multiple times Marshall would set DUIs for his clients on the same day. And he would run from north court to south court to West Court. He would plead a guy who had multiple DUIs to multiple convictions on the same day. But by doing, by setting them on the same day, none of them were prior convictions. And so he would avoid a mandatory four month sentence by running around the county and pleading people. And finally somebody caught onto it and made you sign what was called the Schulman addendum to a toll waiver.

[Matt Murphy]

Imagine, imagine as a junior law clerk, so 1992, I'm clerking and I get that guy from my very first defense lawyer, my very first court appearance. And he was famous, Mark, for telling everybody, I'm going to have your bar card, I'm going to have your bar card. So he does that whole routine to me, I'm going to have your bar card. And I go to my boss thinking, I just had the shortest career in the history of the DA's office. And to Marshall, I'm Like, I don't even have a bar card yet. And my boss laughed. His guy Jackson, he goes, matt, you're nobody in this county until Marshall Schulman has threatened to take your bar card.

[Mark Geragos]

You're good. He also had one of the great lines. You know, he went to Loyola Law School. And one of the things he loved to say to new deputy das is, where'd you go to law school? And the guy would say. He goes, I will take the law school malpractice lawsuit on contingency. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. And then he would proceed to get it and lecture you on what you. How you are not ethical, how you don't know anything, and how you are. You're literally. He's got. How many times did he tell you, I've got shoes that are older than you. What?

[Matt Murphy]

Oh, yeah, shoes. And then we. And he talks about the onion field case. We put my buddy John Jenkins, we went up in juvie. And I'd had my whole Marshall experience. I'm like, dude, he's going to tell you about the onion filled case. And my buddy John, who is hysterical, he goes, yeah, dude, I've heard all about you. You did the onion peel case. Who cares, man? It was like in the 60s. Who cares? Yeah. Marshall was. Marshall was one of a kind. He also lived to be about 130 years old, I think, because he refused to die, which is.

[Mark Geragos]

He did moved up to San Francisco with his wife and to be closer to his daughter. And the last Marshall Schulman story is during the Onion Field. And my father told me this story. Marshall later confirmed it. He's the prosecutor, the D.A. he walks behind the defendant and he leans down and he tells the guy, I'm going to. I'm going to fry you like a piece of bacon. And in front of the jury, not loud enough that the jury can hear, but so that he can get a reaction out of the defendant.

[Matt Murphy]

That's Marshall. Yep. He was also famous for kicking your chair. We'd walk by, you always kick. Kick the chair you were sitting in. One of a kind.

[Charlotte Flair]

So, jackpot for the Luckyland Snow Queen herself.

[Matt Murphy]

Hey, who's playing my game?

[Charlotte Flair]

The Queen herself. Tiff, I know you're new here, but you're going to need a lot more gold coins. No.

[Matt Murphy]

I declare myself the Lucky Land Snow Queen.

[Charlotte Flair]

Yeah, right. Think you can take down the Lucky Land Queen?

[Mark Geragos]

Not on my way. Watch.

[Matt Murphy]

I'm Tiffany Stratton from the wwe.

[Charlotte Flair]

And I'm Charlotte Flair.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Advertiser (Puppy/Kitten)]

Play Lucky Land Casino today to see

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Advertiser]

if you can take the throne.

[Matt Murphy]

No purchase necessary. BMW Group woodwork prohibited by law. See terms and conditions for details.

[Brian Friedman]

21/sponsored by Lucky Land Casino.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Advertiser (Suspense)]

Do you love your pets? Do you love suspense? Do you love it when your pets keep you in suspense because they ate something mysterious? And who knows what the vet visit will cost? If you answered yes twice and then no, you should protect your pet with Lemonade Pet Insurance. It can save you up to 90% on vet bills for checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, all the stuff that leaves you financially on the edge of your seat. Get a quick and Easy [e-mail] pet and get your suspense somewhere else, like from a riveting podcast.

[Matt Murphy]

So why don't we. Let's talk about this David case. What have you. What have you heard recently? I just kind of updated. I did a deep dive into some of the latest. This is really juicy stuff.

[Mark Geragos]

Well, so were you surprised because you and I talked about this? I said this was a. I called it the litigation game of chicken, that the defense was calling the bluff of the prosecution by saying, we're not waiving time. Prosecution probably thought they were going to ask for more time at the arraignment. Blair Burke doesn't. You have to know Beth Silverman to know that she would have just raised. There's Blair right there on the screen. To know Beth is there is no way she's going to dismiss. She would go to the grand jury first or she would just cancel everybody's vacations. And certainly that's what she said. And she was livid, to say the least, at the last court appearance because sure enough, apparently the defense blinked first and said, we need a continuance.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah. So just to bring the, the viewers up to speed on this, a bunch of documents came out, bunch of search warrants were unsealed, and we have a whole bunch of additional information and basically what the prosecution's alleging. And of course, he's presumed innocent, but it does not look good for David. They're alleging that he had a romantic dispute with her, that they'd been dating since she was 13, which is the genesis of the continuous sexual abuse of a minor. And she found out that he was seeing other women and she threatened to tell on him, in effect. So he ordered an Uber for her, lured her to his to his house, ambushed her, stabbed her multiple times in the chest, and then went on Amazon and ordered like, cutting instruments and a burn cage and a kiddie pool to dismember her body and apparently he did that in the garage. And anybody who's ever been to one of those scenes before, Mark, you know, viscera and tissue. Sorry, I know it's graphic. Goes everywhere. So there's just no way that that garage is not full of her DNA. And then he put her in the car and drove her around the corner. Apparently. He did that him, according to the allegations. And then, of course, Nathan Hockman famously announced a couple of days ago that when they got into his phone, they found a bunch of child pornography. And of course, their dispute was all apparently captured on the cloud via text message. So. And I'm sure you've seen this before, too, Mark, when you've got one of those, like a teacher case or something like that, where they can have a cheering section and they can have. That their. Their church group might show up or they might have a circle of friends. As soon as people hear child pornography, they run for the exits. And I got a feeling that his fan base just evaporated pretty quick with that allegation.

[Mark Geragos]

It. There's several things here that just are perplexing to me, though I will tell you that, number one is somebody other than him, unless they've got him on. They did say they have wiretaps. So that leads me to believe that if they have wiretaps, either he said something or somebody else said something, that they. To give the specificity of the way that they have described this. Because, you know, you hear a lot of times in federal cases where you talk about a speaking indictment, this is a speaking prosecution in the stateside, in terms of exactly how they've described what has happened here. I'm guessing they've got the text messages, as you mentioned. Those are always backed up in the cloud. Guys think they throw the phone away. That doesn't do anything for you. But somebody else either talked or they've got a wiretap. And this is kind of from the federal playbook, because you used to say, my father, who's looking over my shoulder, used to say, the feds never bring a case unless they've got a snitch or a wiretap or both. And sounds like here in the state

[Matt Murphy]

they've got both, which is very rare. We were talking about this a couple of days ago. Beth Silverman.

[Brian Friedman]

I.

[Matt Murphy]

You know, I don't know her. I know Mark does. My hat is kind of off to them on this one because what they did is very unusual. They. There's two functions of a grand jury in California. One is you can. You can seek an indictment. So you go and you present evidence, everything's secret, and you ask for an indictment at the end. The downside to that, and it speeds things up and there are a few tactical advantages, but the downside is you can't change your, you're limited to the indictment or the true bill and what the allegations are by doing it this way. The second way is purely investigative. And what they can do is they can force people to testify. And it looks like his inner circle, whether they're music related or if they're just hangers on, I don't know. But apparently that's what they did. And for the viewer, it's really interesting. The police knock on your door and they want to interview you, you don't have to say a word. But if they bring you in front of a grand jury, they can actually force what's known as use immunity on you and you bring the judge down and they say, I'm granting this use of immunity. You no longer have a fifth amendment right. You can't self incriminate based on anything you say. So I'm ordering you to answer the questions. And I think you're absolutely right, Mark, as usual, you, I think you really nailed it. They got some of those people in the inner circle to talk and that's where a lot of these details come. And that is going to be, I think, devastating. And really with all the electronic trail that it sounds like they left, all they need is for that person to come in and lay the foundation and go, yep, that's, that's my number. Those are text messages with mirror. That's my voice on the wiretap. And, and he's cooked. So I, you know, I don't, I don't know the defense lawyers either again, L. A But man, I would not, I wouldn't want to trade places with them on this one. I think he's, I think he's, I

[Mark Geragos]

think he's done for the, the things that, I think really if true, that where they can tell a very compelling story to a jury is when you talk about a burn cage or some kind of a cutting device. And what did you describe it as? A kiddie pool or something like that.

[Matt Murphy]

A kitty kiddie pool. Not to be confused with kitty porn by the way, which apparently is all over his phone.

[Mark Geragos]

Yeah. When you've got those kinds of details so that, I mean you can imagine the PowerPoint presentation in the opening, right. I mean it writes itself where you put up the receipts, you put up the Amazon shipping, you put up what the Item looks like you put up the text messages. You put up something that was said in a conversation that may have been intercepted. Maybe you press play and you've got the audio that's taken from the wiretap. Wiretap. You know, you often hear about people getting phone records, but the pen register, which is the kind of the list of the calls that's on your phone bill, is different from a wiretap, which is the interception of the contents of the call. And if they've got that, and if there are incriminating things on those calls that say, what are we going to do? Or how are we going to do this? Then you could layer over that, what the expectation is at least their theory. And if they've got it, this is the uphill battle in the defense. If all of this was done in the house and they have gone into that house and they've got forensic evidence, they layer that over as well. It becomes a case. Even if they don't have a person who was present when the homicide occurred or the, you know, they're going to argue the murder occurred, that is for a jury, much more compelling. You know, it. I mean, you've handled murder cases as. I don't know, as many as me, but as many as any prosecutor drawing a breath walking around. And they. I will tell you, a good circumstantial case is harder for a defense lawyer to defend against than a direct evidence eyewitness case.

[Matt Murphy]

I totally. Yeah, I totally agree. There's this myth out there that circumstantial evidence is bad evidence. As a prosecutor, give me a good circumstantial case over somebody telling the jury something any day of the week because it's. They. They draw their own conclusions as they're supposed to, and they're instructed to do that. And it's all fundamentally based on common sense.

[Mark Geragos]

The.

[Matt Murphy]

I guess the big remaining question on this one is is whether or not this is a death case. Whether or not Nathan Hockman seeks death on this. It certainly is really bad. Joey Esposito used to make the call for Jackie Lacey. And I think Joey's a great guy.

[Mark Geragos]

You know his nickname? I don't. I wonder. So nickname Baby Joey.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah. Well, I never heard that. I. I love that guy, actually. But, yeah, that's gonna be that.

[Mark Geragos]

By the way, I'll test you. Do you know what it used to be called?

[Matt Murphy]

No.

[Mark Geragos]

Before Joey. Okay. No, I'm gonna. We'll let the viewers. First one. First one who can cite. And it was named after a guy whose first name was Kurt. I will. The first one who can cite that will give him some in the well merchandise. How's that?

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah. So that's going to be interesting. Then the. The case would change if they decide to seek it. I don't know if this is a death case. I don't know. I used to sit on our committee in Orange county for 15 years. I don't know. I don't know what he's going to do. Up next, we've got, and this is awesome, we've got Brian Friedman, who's the lawyer representing Justin Baldoni. He joins us to discuss the actor's upcoming trial against Blake Lively. Everybody, please stay tuned. This is going to be really good.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Advertiser (Puppy/Kitten)]

Just got a new puppy or kitten. Congrats. But also, yikes. Between crates, beds, toys, treats, and those flowers, first few vet visits, you've probably already dropped a small fortune, which is where Lemonade pet insurance comes in. It helps cover vet costs so you can focus on what's best for your new pet. The coverage is customizable, sign up is quick and easy and your claims are handled in as little as three seconds. Lemonade offers a package specifically for puppies and kittens. Get a'llemonade.com pet your future self will thank you. Your pet won't. They don't know what insurance is.

[DSW Advertiser]

At dsw, we ask the important questions like what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're practicing prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an rsvp. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today and let us surprise you.

[Mark Geragos]

Welcome back to in the well and look, our inaugural guest. There was only one choice and he. I consider him, if not my closest friend, one of. Don't take it personally, Matt. He's also one of the finest lawyers drawn a breath none other than Brian Friedman. And he's. He's something else. I'm happy to have him here. He owes me dinner and. But instead I'm collecting by having him here in the well. And Matt Murphy, meet Brian Friedman.

[Matt Murphy]

My pleasure. Yeah, I've heard about you for years, Brian. I guess I'm, I'm. I feel fortunate. I've never had to go against you before in anything. So welcome to. Welcome to our show. Why don't we start by if you can give us an update. We had some really big developments over the last couple weeks in the Jason Baldoni Blake Lively case. If you don't mind, why don't you bring us up to speed?

[Brian Friedman]

Sure. First of all, it's a pleasure to be here. It's an honor to be here. Mark Garagos has been a mentor to me, a friend to me, taught me so much about being a lawyer's lawyer and what that really means and what it means to really be there for clients in a significant way. And Matt, it's wonderful to be with you and to be here. So I'll start with that with respect to the Baldoni Lively case, which should now be called it ends with us, LLC Lively, because Justin Baldoni is, is no longer a party to the case. So, you know, I, I, I think that's probably the biggest update you could possibly get right there.

[Mark Geragos]

I was gonna say people don't understand what you've accomplished here and talk about, I would call it litigation jiu jitsu in terms of what you've done here. I've had a front row seat only because I'm fascinated by the legal machinations. But this case has been an amazing primer for anybody who follows it on the legal end. I know that there's, everybody is polarized over the Lively camp versus the Baldoni camp, but from a litigation perspective, what has happened here, I mean, can you. And I don't want to hoist you on the rule 23.1 Southern District petard over here, but which I always feel is unconstitutional. That's, I've been throwing that around since Diddy last year. But the, the fact is the Justin is not as an individual, a party this anymore. Correct?

[Brian Friedman]

That, that is correct. Justin's not a party. Jamie Heath is not a party. Jen Abel is not a party. Melissa Nathan individually is not a party. So Jen Abel's company is not a party. So there are a number of parties that were parties and are not part of the party, so to speak.

[Mark Geragos]

Right. They're no longer part of the party. Then I saw an order today that came down, but I didn't know the significance of it. There was something was posted on Pacer and somebody sent it to me. What's the significance of the order that literally came out today as we're taping this?

[Brian Friedman]

Well, it depends what we're talking about here. I mean, there's a few different things going on and, and the judge is making some pre trial rulings that, that are going to affect the case. I think we had A very, very good day at court yesterday. It is.

[Mark Geragos]

That's to say the least. You want to, you want to recount what happened in court yesterday.

[Brian Friedman]

You know, there were, there were some terrific arguments. It was Tuesday, actually. All the days are blending together because, you know, when I woke up in the morning on Tuesday before going to the Southern District of New York, I realized that I did not have my picture ID that it had. I had lost it and it was gone. So imagine the, the initial fear of not having your picture ID and having to go into the Southern District of New York courthouse and then knowing that after that you would be flying back to Los Angeles, so then you'd be meeting up with TSA and trying to get on a plane without your picture ID at JFK K Airport in New York. So I figured whatever was going to happen in that courtroom was going to be nothing compared to the rest of my day. Right. If I, if I made it into the courtroom. Right. And so I'm happy to say that all three things turned out well. I got onto the plane, got into the courthouse and, and I watched some of my colleagues just do a phenomenal job arguing some really important motions, which, you know, which, which while there were some rulings that were issued, some rulings haven't been issued. But, you know, by, by, by virtue of the arguments, I feel pretty good about which way it's headed. And, and some of that stuff was technical, expert stuff having to do with whether certain experts should be dauberted, which is, you know, essentially whether they should be kept in the case and on what level they should be kept in the case for their expert opinions. And, you know, when you're looking at things like the Internet and whether, you know, whether there was movement on the Internet and what that even means, you know, when there are comments in the comments section as opposed to comments on the, on the original post and some of that. So there was that argument. There was a damages argument that Amir Kolgrad did a great job on and talked about the damages. One of the things that Ms. Lively was arguing for were actually, believe it or not, damages for her loss of damages for the sequel that she didn't get to participate in the sequel on the movie. And, and Mr. Colgrad did a great job and was.

[Mark Geragos]

Was terrific and really talked question about that. The lost damages on a movie that wasn't made would seem to me to be the most speculative type of damages. That would almost be garbage. So is that the argument? What was the argument?

[Brian Friedman]

Well, some of the argument was, you know, Obviously that Wayfarer had the rights to the movie. So it was ultimately their decision to whether to make the sequel or not. And there was no, you know, you know, there was no, you know, decision made and possibly the sequel could never be made. That certainly who was going to be in the sequel or not and who is going to be participating at what level, even if one was made, was, was some decision that wasn't even made yet. And, and in fact, Sony, who, you know, was a co financer of the movie, you know, Mr. Kallgrad reported in court that, that Sony had referred to Blake Lively as, you know, as a terrorist. And so there was no guarantee that Sony would want Blake Lively to be involved in the, in the sequel. You know, when you're referring, referring to someone as a terrorist.

[Mark Geragos]

Yeah.

[Matt Murphy]

So let's, if you don't mind, Brian, why don't we back up just a bit so the, the audience understands you guys had a huge victory. Regarding. I think 10 of 13 of the claims were actually dismissed. If you could just give us a quick overview. What, what, what were those claims? Not everyone, but just the gist. And then what is remaining? Like what are the issues that you guys are currently battling out?

[Brian Friedman]

Sure. I, I, I think, you know, from a, from a 10,000 foot, you know, space, looking down, I would say that the biggest and most important part of those rulings and the 10 claims that were eliminated from the case were the individuals that were eliminated from the case. So Justin Baldoni is no longer a defendant. While the case will always be referred to, I think as, as Baldoni Lively or Lively Baldoni, you know, Justin Baldoni is no longer a party in the case. Jamie Heath is no longer an individual party in the case. Jan Abel is no longer a party in the case. Right. Melissa Nathan is no longer an individual party. There are some entities that are left. Melissa Nathan's entity is in the case. The agency group, It Ends with Us LLC is in the case. And Wayfarer is in the case. But Steve Sarewitz is out of the case also individually. So significantly, you know, there's three parties left in the case. Those are all entities, not individuals. That is significant. If you were looking at this case as there are two parts of it, meaning was there sexual harassment and was there a smear campaign? The entirety of the sexual harassment claims are gone. So those have been ruled on, those have been dismissed. And to the extent they haven't been formally dismissed, they will be. But that was the ruling. And it's significant because despite others who have spoken Differently. The biggest and most important part of the case to Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath and others was being called asexual predator or being a sexual harasser. And that was unnerving on so many levels. Right. Like a human level. Who you are, what you stand for, who you are in the world, whether you'll ever work again, all of those meaningful things. And, and, and some of the other things, like other people participated as, as co conspirators in that, or helped to facilitate being a sexual harasser. You know, those are gone. And, and, and, and not to be brought back.

[Matt Murphy]

We've kind of survived an era, at least I think we survived it, where an accusation alone would be enough to destroy somebody professionally. Probably went through about 10 years of that. I think in a weird way, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, I keep hearing that name in relation to yours. I think that really might have marked the high water point of that. Camille Vasquez, who is the Johnny Depp's lawyer, was one of my old students that I had in a constitutional class. I was coaching a high school team for like three years. And she's great. I started watching to see how Camille was doing, but I kept watching because the train wreck that was all things Amber heard. And this really does have some echoes to that. It seems like in your case there were some horrific accusations that were made and court dismissed almost all of them. Tell us about the surviving claim of the smear campaign. What is that all about? I did a little deep dive, Ryan and I. I watched some YouTube, which is usually never good for me when I prep, but I saw an interview with Blake Lively with this. I think she was a Danish reporter, her and Parker Posey. It was a, a Woody Allen movie, I think, from 2016. And it's something to behold. Why don't you tell us about that?

[Brian Friedman]

I think you're referring to the Christie flaw video and.

[Matt Murphy]

That's right. Yeah.

[Charlotte Flair]

First of all, congrats on your little bump. Congrats on your little bump. What about my bump? You've got two nice ones.

[DSW Advertiser]

And these.

[Charlotte Flair]

They are kind of bumps, aren't they? No, not bumps. The lovely lady lumps. Check it out. Thank you. Thank you. Do you like the movie? Are you a Woody Allen fan? I love most of his movies. And this one was so, like, visually amazing. Yeah, it's gorgeous. Did you guys love wearing those kind of clothes that you.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah.

[Charlotte Flair]

Yeah. And you know, working in digital, wants to talk about the clothes, but I wonder if they would ask the men about the clothes.

[Mark Geragos]

I would.

[Charlotte Flair]

I love Jesse's that's what I'm saying. His, his wardrobe was beautiful. Corey's wardrobe. I know. High waisted pants. He's so great. I wish men were. Or their father with his, with his, his tank top. So good. It's just like the tablecloth on the, on the light in the Italian restaurant

[Brian Friedman]

when they eat spaghetti, as I understand it. And, and first, Chris Kirsty Flaw will be on the, is on the witness list. And, and, and she arguably will testify if not excluded from testifying. But you know, that has to do with a video interview that was done several years ago and that my understanding is Ms. Flaw reposted that video after seeing the film and not knowing anything about the dispute between Justin Baldoni and, and Blake Lively or any, any on set difficulties or anything like that, that she reposted it. And, and that there was a, you know, there was certainly, you know, seemed to be a backlash based on some of the, on some of the activities that were shown in that interview and you know, which led to, which seemed to lead to people having strong opinions about Blake Lively's conduct.

[Mark Geragos]

How do you go to trial on a smear campaign in this day and age when just being on the Internet is basically a smear campaign? I don't understand what that. I, I don't get it. What is the, what is the cause of action that you fought for your client, that you use free speech? What is the. I don't. What, what are the elements of that.

[Brian Friedman]

Well, you know, Judge Lyman, actually in the written, you know, a thoughtful written analysis and ruling on the summary judgment motion, which is very long and very detailed, laid out specifically things that were okay and things that were not okay, meaning that if you're doing things to protect yourself and to protect your reputation or to protect the film or to protect the, you know, the profits involved in the film, and that, that was your, you know, your motivation that, that you are allowed to do things to protect yourself and that if you were, you know, if you were doing things that were, you know, were not like that, but instead, you know, intentionally defaming or, or, you know, arguably doing things to, to hurt the other side without reason and without privilege, that that would not be okay. So

[Mark Geragos]

how does that differ from just a defamation style lawsuit? I mean, frankly, isn't that what it is?

[Brian Friedman]

I, I mean, I, I think that that's, you know, from, from, from a law school perspective that that's, that's what it feels like it is, right? Is that, is that you're defaming someone, but, but Keep in mind that it's interesting, you know, are you defaming someone when, when you're actually, you know, what was showing up are videos that existed on the Internet, you're not creating new content. You're actually, you know, you're actually just being blamed for content that was older, content that is reappearing in the Internet and, and reappearing in, in, you know, in significant ways. I mean, I think we could all agree that during the premiere of a movie, at the start of the movie, there's a public publicity campaign. And you know, that was another issue in, in, in, in why there was some organic hate. But, but ultimately, you know, I think that, you know, when you're, you're basically doing nothing but showing what already exists, whether something like that can be actionable and query whether you can show that someone's showing that or commenting on it or what they're doing, that's, that's improper with it. So I think it raises a lot of really interesting issues. It'll be the subject of a law school class, I'm sure, one day. And, and, and you know, because so much of the things that came up after the premiere were based on things that already existed on the Internet that, you know, there were, there were other articles, but, but there were things that already existed.

[Mark Geragos]

Yeah. I don't understand. I mean, if you're, if you're doing some kind of a social media campaign or if you're doing anything in regards to social media, basically you're trying to make somebody civilly liable for amplifying something that's there or engaging in a campaign, by the way, that's done all the time in political campaigns. I Remember back in 2016, I'm old enough to remember Cambridge analytics and, and all of the meta stuff and the kinds of things that people were complaining about back then and they complained all of a sudden. I mean, it really does kind of trample on the First Amendment in a lot of ways.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah. Wouldn't truth be a defense just to echo what Mark was saying, Brian, like if, in other words, if she gives an interview and she comes off as a mean girl with Parker Posey and then people post that, how do you blame somebody else for you looking bad because of your own behavior in a smear campaign? I mean, it seems like it's analogous to just the truth. Or am I, am I misreading that?

[Brian Friedman]

I think there's a distinct part of the case that involves a 17 point list that was agreed to for her to return to the film. And as part of that 17 point list, there was a provision in there that talked about things you can do and can't do. And so I think part of it is contractually based, which makes it different than defamation. And then part of it is FIHA based, which, you know, which bars someone from retaliating, which brings up all sorts of other issues, including, you know, you know, extraterritoriality and other issues having to do with where the laws are coming from, where the filming took place, where the alleged retaliatory action took place, and whether this law can be enforced in New York or not.

[Mark Geragos]

Well, you're right. It's talking about a law school class. I mean, you start getting into feeha, do you have workers comp exclusivity? I could see all kinds of other compliance with whether or not you got a right to sue and you did, and which jurisdictional law governs and where the venue is. I mean, it's a, it's a literally a Rubik's cube, isn't it?

[Brian Friedman]

I mean, it is, but you know, you know, an interesting part of the case is, is decisions that are made of where you file things. Right. So, you know, the. Here you had the filming take place, you know, virtually all in New Jersey. Any allegation of sexual harassment was alleged to have taken place on the set, which was filmed in New Jersey. But you, you know, but you're trying to apply California law to that, and then you're filing it in New York, asking a New York federal court judge to apply California law to activities which took place in New Jersey that arguably wouldn't be the proper place to apply California law because you're in New Jersey, you'd be applying New Jersey law. So, you know, it's, you know, some of this is based on actions and decisions that were made by lawyers, you know, day one in this case and early on.

[Mark Geragos]

Wow, Just wild. Well, when is, when is trial set for?

[Brian Friedman]

Right now, trial is set for May 18th in New York. I, I understand I'll have a new ID by then, and in the meantime I'll use passport. And so that's a great part of preparation. You know, if, you know, you can get in there,

[Matt Murphy]

it's always good to be able to get into the courthouse. I found.

[Mark Geragos]

You realize that on Tuesday when you were there unexpectedly, you were in one part of the courthouse, I was ducking in. In another part of the courthouse, I. Unexpectedly, for me, because it was a criminal arraignment and I was trying to find you, but they were kind of whisking Us out of. Down one hallway, and I kept saying, I want to go find Freedman. I want to go find Freedmen. Little did I know you didn't have your ID with you.

[Brian Friedman]

Yeah, no, but I made it through. I would have. I would love to see you and I'd love to see in action. You know, I've shown up sometimes at Mark's trials, and Mark doesn't even know it. I show up as a fan just sitting in the back to. To watch the master in action.

[Matt Murphy]

Truly, if they saw you with Mark Ergos, they never would have let you into the building.

[Brian Friedman]

Exactly.

[Mark Geragos]

They would have. They would have patted himself. I'm gonna. Brian, when.

[Brian Friedman]

Sometimes being with Mark Aragos can be a smear campaign in and of itself.

[Mark Geragos]

When do you. Are you moving to New York? You're going to move to New York? I assume. So you'll be camped out here for the trial?

[Brian Friedman]

Yes. Yeah, we're. We'll be there for a while, and we'll be camped out before the trial and during the trial and, and, and looking forward to it. I mean, look, you know, I mean, just as a lawyer, right, And I'm putting the clients aside and putting the people and the individuals and the burdens on them and their families aside for a minute, but just as kind of like a student. Right. And someone who always wanted to be in a courtroom and someone who always wanted to help people in that way and to, and to speak to juries and to really like to really have an impassioned plea about what the case is really about. It's such an exciting moment for me personally. And, and, and, you know, I wish my father was still around because he, he, Although he was a doctor, he loved the law. And, and I just took my mom in for a medical procedure, but, you know, I hope she's there. So, on a personal level, it's great for me on a, on a. On, you know, you know, on a level that, that has to do with individuals and what people go through in a trial and, and whatnot. You know, I, I feel really, you know, emotional about Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath, Melissa Nathan, Jen Abel, Steve Sarawitz, you know, all of them and what they've been through in this case and how they've had to, essentially, from the dropping of the New York Times article until today to be able to prove that they were not wrong. And that's something that, that, you know, in, in our system, you know, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And, and really, you know, this case has really stood for, you know, that, that you were guilty at first until you proved that you were innocent. And that's what we, you know, that's what we're hoping to accomplish fully and so far.

[Mark Geragos]

So has his honor referred you to ADR or ordered mediation or settlement discussions?

[Brian Friedman]

I think it's publicly on the docket that we were, we met with the magistrate judge. So I think I can speak to that and that's the only orders that I'm aware of.

[Mark Geragos]

Well, you know, I, speaking of fathers, my father used to say these cases never settle sometimes until they see the whites of the juror's eyes. So we'll, we'll see.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah, the, yeah. Isn't that the truth? And it seems like you got a real, no nonsense judge here, Brian. So hopefully everything, everything works out in trial exactly the way it should. I cannot imagine what it might be must be like for your client to be facing ruin like that. And that's not, you know, I'm not taking any position one way or another, but the, the personal stress that somebody must undergo and you have a machine with famous people coming after you, you know, that's, I cannot imagine going through something like that. So congratulations for, for nothing else for getting him personally out of the lawsuit. That is a huge deal. He should probably, I don't know how many, if he's planning to have more kids. Sounds like he should name his firstborn or second born

[Mark Geragos]

Brian Baldoni. I could see that and ring to it. Yeah. Speaking of fathers, is judge. I think this is the case. Judge lie. Judge Lyman is Arthur Lyman's son. Is that true? Because Arthur Lyman. Yeah. Arthur Lyman when I was young was one of those storied lawyers that could walk into a criminal courtroom, a civil courtroom, just, you know, kind of a real throwback and was one of the, one of the lions, if you will, of the bar. And so Brian, thank you. Next we've got an old tale from inside the well. Stay tuned. Brian Friedman, thanks again.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah, good luck, Brian. Thank you.

[Brian Friedman]

Good luck you guys with, with the show and, and, and everything that you do. I really appreciate you.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Advertiser]

If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade pet insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easy through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you y' all drop it.

[DSW Advertiser]

At dsw, we ask the important questions, like what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an rsvp. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe wear. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today and let us surprise you.

[Matt Murphy]

Welcome back to in the well. It's our time to unearth a story from our past. I want to say start real quick by where does the term in the well come from? And the well is the area between council table in a courtroom and the judge's bench. And in the olden days, like 400 years ago in old England, there was always a bailiff with a big flail, and the flail was 12ft long. And the the bailiff would defend the judge from the litigants who all wore swords. The the flail or the spear was longer than a sword. And so there's this, this forbidden area called the well. And Mark and I both, as young lawyers have stepped in the well and the bailiffs, it's the most exciting thing that happens because they're trained to keep people out of the well just like they were 400 years ago. And you really, sometimes you'll even see them going for their guns. So that's where it comes from early

[Mark Geragos]

in my career, guys reaching for their gun when you walk inadvertently into the well. And I've seen it with some young lawyers where they do it. But one of my favorite, and I shouldn't smile about it, but I do, is you see occasionally these videos, courtroom videos of a defendant leaping into the well towards the bench. And so they're trying to traverse the well without stepping into it.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah, so that's the that's the premise of the show, guys. That's where the title comes from, where Mark and I are in the area that you're not supposed to be, which we've both been in trouble in court before. So it's an area we're used to. And anyway, let me tell you a really kind of a cool Mark ergo story from about a million years ago. So Mark and I had dealt with cases for years and so we knew each other and we were very friendly. And I'm walking into court one day now. This is after Mark has become Hollywood famous and he's the defense lawyer to the stars. And I've pretty much just started in homicide, and I had a case where Tom and Jackie Hawks were tied to an anchor. It was a really nice retired couple tied to an anchor and thrown overboard off their yacht. And it was kind of the case of the week in America. And everybody was trying to find this couple. And it was dominating the headlines and Larry King and all that. And we had no bodies. And when you're a prosecutor in that and all eyes are kind of on you, especially from your supervisors, and there's a lot of pressure. And these poor people were missing, and we knew that they were dead. And we downloaded the GPS from their boat and we saw that they were out at sea. And I'm walking into court and Mark is walking into the parking lot, and we pass each other and he's like, hey, how you doing? We have this friendly exchange, and I start walking to the courthouse, and he's like, hey, wait a second. And this is right after Mark, right after you finished Lacy Peterson and the Scott Peterson case. And he goes, hey, hang on for a sec. He goes, are you guys. You guys doing side scan sonar? Nobody in the world literally knew that we were doing side scan sonar and we were doing it that day. So I'm like, how the hell do you know that? And Mark looked at me and he goes, you're not. It's not going to work. You're not going to find the bodies. And don't let that stop you. If you develop the evidence, prosecute them anyway. And I thought that was so frigging cool, because at that moment, Mark, the pressure was on. And Mark wound up being exactly right. We didn't find the bodies, but the guy was guilty as hell. His name was Skyler De Leon. It was a conspiracy. And in the middle of our investigation, we discovered a whole different murder committed 10 months before. So this guy was responsible for murdering three innocent people, all for money. And he constructed this horrific, diabolical conspiracy to go down there, lure them out to sea, pretend like he was buying their boat. And in one of the darkest, lowest moments of that, when we had nothing, we had no evidence at all, I got a little pep talk from my friend Mark Garagos. And it was when I needed it most. And it's exactly what we did. We prosecuted that case. We've never found the bodies. We actually broke the sonar. It was the U.S. navy sonar. We broke it that day, which is typical of my guys at Newport. And we went anyway. And I always, I always really appreciated that. Anyway, Mark and I have been friends for years. I love Mark Ergos, and that's why we're doing the show together, is that Mark is somebody I've always admired. And we're going to have a lot of fun.

[Mark Geragos]

We are going to have a hell of a lot of fun. And next week, I'm going to tell you all kinds of stories about Matt. Next week, it's Michael.

[Matt Murphy]

Good stuff. Okay, so I want to thank our guest, Brian Friedman. And thanks to all of you for tuning in, especially for for our first podcast together in the well. New episodes will be dropping every Friday and hope everybody has a fantastic weekend.

[Lucky Land Casino Advertiser]

Looking for your lucky side. You'll find it at Luckyland Casino. It's the ultimate destination where every spin is a fresh adventure. No app needed, just your browser ready to meet your your lucky side. Sign up today. Your first surprise is waiting. Lucky Land Casino where the magic happens. No purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21

[Goto Bank Advertiser]

breathe in. Feel the sense of calm that comes from having up to 300 in overdraft protection with Goto bank now.

[DSW Advertiser]

Did you say $300?

[Charlotte Flair]

Yes.

[Goto Bank Advertiser]

Now back to our breathing.

[DSW Advertiser]

So if I overspend my balance, Goto bank has my back up to $300.

[Goto Bank Advertiser]

Yes. Can we breathe out now? Less worries, more zen. With over $300 in overdraft protection. Tap to open an account today. Eligible direct deposits and opt in required for overdraft protection fees. Terms and conditions apply.