The highly publicized legal battle between It Ends With Us stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni continues to intensify, 

with allegations of sexual harassment, defamation, and extortion fueling the feud. 

As the case moves toward trial in 2026, both sides are now clashing over the scope of subpoenas and privacy protections in the discovery process. 

What started as a dispute between the two actors has now expanded, drawing in Hollywood heavyweights such as Ryan Reynolds, Taylor Swift, Disney, and even The New York Times.

Privacy Protections at the Center of the Dispute

One of the latest points of contention between Lively and Baldoni’s legal teams is whether sensitive information related to the case should be shielded from public access. 

Lively’s attorneys from Willkie Farr & Gallagher are advocating for an Attorney’s Eyes Only Protective Order (AEO PO), which would limit access to certain evidence and materials to legal teams only. They argue that this is necessary to protect third parties involved in the case, including at least two other women who reportedly felt “uncomfortable” due to Baldoni’s behavior during the making of It Ends With Us. These unnamed women are expected to testify at trial.

In a letter to Judge Lewis J. Liman, Lively’s legal team criticized Baldoni’s defense strategy, stating that misinformation has been deliberately spread online to mischaracterize their request for privacy protections. They pointed to what they called a “manufactured echo chamber” of misleading accusations that justify the need for a strict protective order.

However, Baldoni’s attorney, Mitchell Schuster, has strongly opposed this request, arguing that Lively has been actively litigating her claims in the public eye. In a response letter, Schuster 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.”

He further argued that the standard court protective order should be sufficient, as it allows for judicial intervention when necessary. According to Baldoni’s team, Lively’s demand for heightened secrecy is an attempt to control the narrative after already making her allegations public.

Legal Teams Clash Over Subpoenas and Discovery Process

As the legal battle grows more complex, both parties are fighting over subpoenas issued to telecommunications companies to obtain records related to the case. The lawsuit, which has now ballooned into a $400 million dispute, has drawn scrutiny not just for the allegations at its core but also for the legal tactics being deployed by both sides.

Judge Liman has urged the legal teams to work toward an agreed-upon protective order or submit their individual proposals by March 11. However, given the intensity of the disagreement, a compromise seems unlikely.

Blake Lively’s Legal Team Fires Back at Baldoni’s Claims

Lively’s attorney, Michael Gottlieb, swiftly responded to Baldoni’s latest legal maneuver, calling his side’s objections “disingenuous.” He accused Baldoni’s defense team of dismissing the importance of privacy protections for women speaking out against workplace misconduct.

“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,” Gottlieb wrote.

He also warned that if Baldoni’s proposed protective order were accepted, it would lead to an unnecessary waste of court resources, as legal teams would constantly be forced to fight over whether women involved in the case deserve privacy.

Hollywood Heavyweights Caught in the Legal Crossfire

As the lawsuit drags on, it has pulled in major Hollywood figures and entities. Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s husband, has been mentioned in relation to the film, as Lively has claimed he played a role in shaping parts of It Ends With Us. Taylor Swift has also been referenced, though the extent of her involvement remains unclear.

Additionally, Disney and The New York Times have been linked to various aspects of the case, with allegations of defamation and media manipulation being thrown around by both sides. The feud has reached beyond Hollywood, becoming a larger battle over reputation, media influence, and legal precedent in harassment cases.

Attempts at Mediation Rejected as Trial Looms

Despite the escalating tension, both Lively and Baldoni’s legal teams have rejected mediation efforts from the court, signaling that neither side is willing to settle at this stage. With the trial scheduled for March 29, 2026, in New York City federal court, this legal battle shows no signs of slowing down.

As more evidence is collected and additional claims surface, the case is expected to continue making headlines, further entrenching both sides in what has become one of the most explosive Hollywood legal fights in recent years.

Follow us to see more useful information, as well as to give us more motivation to update more useful information for you.