Blake Lively and Justin BaldoniGetty
The very public clash between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has seen accusations of sexual harassment, smear campaigns, defamation, extortion and more being thrown about, with Ryan Reynolds, the New York Times, Taylor Swift and Disney being pulled in to the various lawsuits. Heading towards a trial starting next year, lawyers for the It Ends With Us stars are now battling over how open the path to that trial should be.
As the Lively and Baldoni legal teams continue to squabble over the scope of subpoenas to telecom companies in what has become a $400 million and counting matter, the actress’ Willkie Farr & Gallagher attorneys today called out the IEWU director, his fellow defendants and allegedly weaponized “online content creators” for “misleading accusations” over a potential protective order.
Claiming that the Attorney’s Eyes Only PO that Team Blake wishes to see put in place for discovery, depositions and more has been warped in its intent and reach, Lively’s lawyers told Judge Lewis J. Liman Tuesday in a letter that in fact “the travels of the mischaracterization embraced by the Opposition through this manufactured echo chamber, by itself, provides ample justification for a Protective Order that establishes adequate protections for third-party privacy interests.”
Those third-parties may include, but not limited to, at least two other women that Lively said in her February 18 first amended complaint were made “uncomfortable” by Baldoni’s conduct during the making of domestic violence themed IEWU. While the duo’s names were absent from the FAC, the documents assert the women intend to be witnesses in the trial, set for March 29, 2026, in New York City federal court. To that end, as but one example, Lively’s side wants to limit who can look at what from the case to lawyers only as more and more evidence and other material is collected.
(L-R) Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni during production on It Ends With UsNicole Rivelli / Jojo Whilden / Sony Pictures Releasing / courtesy Everett Collection
Once again showing the patience of a near saint in this often vociferous matter, Judge Liman has told the parties that a proposal for an agreed upon protective order or individual PO proposals need to be submitted by March 11. As of right now, it is pretty apparent, Lively’s lawyers and Baldoni’s lawyers are nowhere near a mutual PO.
Taking a swipe at “Lively’s counsel and ‘spokesperson’s routine attempt to rehabilitate her tarnished image with bold statements to the press” since the Gossip Girl vet first field her sexual harassment and retaliation compliant against Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios and others on December 20 with California’s Civil Rights department, lawyer Mitchell Schuster today also tried to deflate the desire for the “heightened protections” of the AEO PO his rivals have. “Given how actively the Lively Parties have publicized and litigated Ms. Lively’s claims in the media, we are surprised to now learn how vehemently she wants to prevent the public from accessing material and relevant evidence,” he wrote in a letter earlier Tuesday to Judge Liman over the already established norm of keeping the process redacted, to say the least. Noting the method within the more standard Court’s Model Protective Order to turn to the judge to decide on protective matters the lawyers can’t resolve, Schuster says: “The Lively Parties have not explained and cannot explain why such a mechanism is insufficient.”
Responding fairly swiftly to that letter from Team Baldoni’s Schuster this morning, Lively’s attorney Michael Gottlieb argues in his four-page letter Tuesday that the other side has been disingenuous in its correspondence and actions over this latest issue – and more.
“Leaving aside the callous disregard and disrespect for a woman advocating for the most basic workplace protections against sexual harassment, the Wayfarer Parties’ position that a woman who speaks up against sexual harassment has somehow waived any and all privacy interests shows the futility of future conferral,” the WFG partner notes, with an analysis that Baldoni and crew would undermine any consultation process with the court if their preferred PO was adopted for the case.
“The inevitable byproduct of the Wayfarer Parties’ position will be a massive waste of party and judicial resources as parties (and potentially third parties) seek to convince counsel for the Wayfarer Parties that women do not forfeit all of their privacy interests simply because they have spoken out, or intend to speak out, against the Wayfarer Parties.”
Following the New Year’s Eve and January 16 complaints from Lively and the December 21 WME-dumped-Baldoni that was on the heels of the actress’ CRD filing of late last year, both sides have now placed defendant and claims adding amended complaints in the court docket in what has become an ever expanding dispute.
As the spotlight centers on the alleged Dark Arts PR tactics of Baldoni’s Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, their supposed “hired gun” Jed Wallace has sued Lively for $7 million for his supposed career injurying inclusion in this battle that has captured the attention of Hollywood and elsewhere. At the same time, in a February 20 filing, Lively and Reynolds’ publicist Leslie Sloane requested that she and her Vision PR be dropped from the legal battle.
With that, both sides have said “No Thanks” to offered mediation from the court, and have made it clear to Judge Liman that any hope of a settlement is very premature at this bitter point.
