The couple has filed a request to keep their texts with “high profile” people confidential, citing concerns that Baldoni’s camp may leak them to the press.

However, Justin Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman has hit back at Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, calling their proposal “unnecessary.”

Lively and Reynolds want their conversations kept private as their ongoing court battle with Baldoni wages on.

At a hearing in Manhattan federal court on Thursday, attorney Meryl Conant Governski said that the couple wants a protective order put in place before they divulge conversations with “high profile” people about Lively’s time on “It Ends With Us,” as they fear Baldoni could leak them to the press, per Rolling Stone.

The lawyer explained in court that such texts would have high “PR value” whether or not they’re relevant to the fact of the case.

“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,” Governski said.

“There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders,” the attorney added.

According to the news outlet, Lively’s attorney went further to urge Judge Lewis Liman to place an extra layer of security, known as an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” category, for such texts, as well as information on the parties’ mental health, and security measures they’ve taken amid the feud.

Governski stressed that such a designation be placed on information that included “speaking about children, profound mental health issues or locations of private residences or homes.”

When Liman asked Governski if she was implying that Baldoni’s lawyers posed a “risk” to  Lively and Reynold’s security, the lawyer said “no.”

However, Governski noted that Baldoni’s co-defendants include people “whose entire living is based on providing information to the press and content creators.”

Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman has since hit back at the power couple’s request, saying it was “unnecessary” and “offensive that anyone would suggest that we would disregard a protective order.”

Freedman added that Lively and Reynolds’ plan would unjustly treat “celebrity people” and “people who are powerful in the industry” differently from others.

He also explained that a so-called “model” protective order that has been submitted to the court to bar the leaking of sensitive information in the case already provides sufficient protection.

“My clients have the right to defend themselves, they have a right to transparency,” he told the court, per the New York Post, adding that his proposed setup is not meant to be “abusing” Lively.

Judge Liman didn’t immediately pass his ruling, saying he’ll give his view “soon.” However, he warned that since the case has garnered public interest, “there is a presumption of public access” in federal courthouses.

Liman added that the existing terms of the proposed protective order would already bar third parties from leaking sensitive information to the press, adding that any such leakers could be held in contempt of court, thereby risking a fine or even jail time.

This comes after Liman suggested on Tuesday that he may dismiss the New York Times as a defendant in Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively.

The “Jane The Virgin” star denied allegations of sexual harassment that the “Gossip Girl” actress slammed him with and filed a $250-million defamation suit against her and the news outlet, which published her allegations.

He subsequently followed up with a $400-million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds, and their publicist, Leslie Sloane, accusing them of conspiring to destroy his reputation and wrest control of the film from him.

However, Judge Liman said the New York Times’ February 28 motion to be excused from the case offered “substantial grounds for dismissal” and “a strong showing that its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed on the merits.”

The recent court hearing comes after Lively’s subpoena requesting access to more than two years of the director’s call and text data was denied by Judge Liman.

Lively had asked for “documents concerning ingoing and outgoing calls or text messages … within the time period of December 1, 2022 to the present.”

However, Liman ruled in Baldoni’s favor, saying that Lively’s request could lead to releasing sensitive information linked to doctors and psychologists and communications with people who aren’t related to their case.

The judge also questioned Lively’s reason for requesting call and text data from two years before Baldoni’s alleged 2024 smear campaign against her began.

“Lively mainly argues that the subpoenas will help to identify ‘the larger network of individuals’ who perpetuated a negative media campaign against her,” Judge Liman said, per the Daily Mail.

He continued, “But according to Lively’s complaint, this negative campaign did not begin until approximately August 2024 … it is therefore unclear how communications to and from Wayfarer Parties in 2022 and 2023 would reveal individuals who participated in the campaign.”