Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni‘s legal teams have spoken out while they await for the judge’s ruling on the actress’ request for a stronger protective order.
During the Thursday, March 6, hearing, Lively’s attorney claimed that Baldoni’s team “created improper disclosure of information.”
“We want to stop the public publication of this information, in the case, during discovery. The rules try and prevent the burden to be on the third parties,” the actress’ lawyer said during Thursday’s hearing. “We should not make the dozens of third parties run to the court for protection. We are supposed to reduce the burden on third parties. He should drop the third-party subpoena against the security firm that protects Lively and Reynolds.”
Bryan Freedman, an attorney for 41-year-old Baldoni, denounced the claims in his own statement before the judge.
“These are matters of ‘for attorney’s eyes only’ restrictions,” Freedman said on Thursday. “This is a case where no one has any intention of harming Ms. Lively in any way. She detailed the sexual harassment claims and put that out there. My clients have been adjudicated as guilty right when this was filed. My client has a right to fight back and to defend himself. We want to agree to the protective order and place the burden on the party, who wants greater protection, to go to court and be transparent.”
Lively’s team further wanted to protect her private correspondence with “high-profile individuals.”
“There is a significant chance of irreparable harm if marginal conversations with high-profile individuals with no relevance to the case were to fall into wrong hands,” her attorney claimed.
Freedman, meanwhile, replied, “We cannot treat celebrity people, and people who are powerful in the industry differently from other people.”
While an official ruling was not made on Thursday, the judge shared the decision would be “soon.”
News broke in February that Lively, 37, and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, requested a stronger PO than the standard one they were granted when she and It Ends With Us costar Baldoni first filed their lawsuits.
“As detailed in Ms. Lively’s Amended Complaint, Ms. Lively, her family, other members of the cast, various fact witnesses, and individuals that have spoken out publicly in support of Ms. Lively have received violent, profane, sexist, and threatening communications,” a letter from Lively and Reynolds, 48, read, noting Lively was seeking “additional protections.”
Lively previously named Baldoni in a December 2024 lawsuit, claiming that he sexually harassed her and fostered a “hostile work environment” on the set of 2024’s It Ends With Us. She amended her complaint last month, detailing the alleged “emotional impact” she is facing from the legal fallout.
Justin Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman has forcefully responded to Blake Lively’s request for a gag order in the former costars’ ongoing legal case surrounding the filming of It Ends With Us. “The irony is not lost on anyone that Ms. Lively is so petrified of the truth that she has moved to gag it,” Freedman […]
“The emotional impact on Ms. Lively has been extreme, not only affecting her, but her family, including her husband and four children,” court docs obtained by Us read. “There are days when she has struggled to get out of bed, and she frequently chooses not to venture outside in public.”
Lively also claimed that she has received multiple violent social media messages amid the legal drama. Baldoni has denied all of the allegations. He also filed a defamation lawsuit against Lively and Reynolds earlier this year. (The married couple, meanwhile, denied the accusations.)
“Anyone receiving violent messages by anonymous parties is abhorrent. When private parties were wrongfully accused by Lively and her paid team of wrongdoing, they received continuous death threats and visits to private homes where young children reside after their addresses were leaked on her initial complaints,” Baldoni’s team told Us in a February statement regarding Lively’s protective order request. “No one should have to face that, especially private parties who do not have means for security detail. We do not condone dangerous rhetoric targeted toward anyone no matter the situation.”
