Photo credit: extratv.com

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Legal Clash Intensifies

In a recent development in the ongoing legal dispute between Blake Lively and her “It Ends with Us” co-star Justin Baldoni, Lively’s request for an enhanced protective order has elicited a sharp response from Baldoni’s legal team.

According to a letter directed to Judge Lewis J. Liman, which was obtained by The Post, Baldoni’s representatives expressed surprise at Lively’s strong desire to limit public access to materials relevant to the case. They noted, “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.”

Initially, Baldoni’s attorneys agreed to the court’s standard protective order but opposed Lively’s suggested modifications, which included a provision for an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” (AEO) status regarding confidential discovery materials. This status is reserved for information deemed highly sensitive that its disclosure could result in various forms of injury, including personal privacy violations.

Baldoni’s legal team contended that Lively’s arguments lacked justification, stating, “The Lively Parties have not explained and cannot explain why such a mechanism is insufficient.” They further asserted that Lively had already disclosed details of her harassment claims in her Amended Complaint, thereby undermining her argument for heightened privacy protections.

In a counter-response, Lively’s attorneys highlighted concerns regarding the dissemination of misleading narratives by online content creators associated with Baldoni’s team. They argued that the distortion of facts through various channels justified the need for a protective order that prioritizes the privacy interests of third parties.

Lively’s legal representatives stressed that the case, involving notable individuals and serious allegations of sexual harassment, warranted enhanced privacy protections. They raised alarms about potential threats and witness intimidation that could arise from exposing sensitive details to the public.

The rebuttal from Lively’s side accused Baldoni’s team of showing a “callous disregard” for the rights of women advocating for fundamental workplace protections against harassment. They emphasized that the stance taken by Baldoni’s party implied that speaking out against harassment equates to forfeiting privacy rights, which they deemed unreasonable and indicative of broader systemic issues that could waste judicial resources.

The trial is set for March 2026, although tensions are escalating, and a judge has hinted at the possibility of moving the trial date forward as the back-and-forth between the parties intensifies.

Source
extratv.com