Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are embroiled in an ongoing legal battle,
and the latest courtroom dispute centers around the level of confidentiality that should be applied to key evidence.
During a 90-minute hearing on Thursday, attorneys for both sides debated the terms of a protective order that would govern the handling of sensitive materials in the case.
Lively, who sued Baldoni for sexual harassment in December, has requested strict limitations on certain evidence, particularly text messages involving well-known figures.
Her legal team has argued that these private communications should be classified under an “attorney’s eyes only” (AEO) designation to prevent them from being made public.
Lively Pushes for Heightened Privacy Protections
Meryl Conant Governski, Lively’s attorney, stressed that exposing messages with high-profile individuals that are unrelated to the case could cause “irreparable harm” if they were leaked.
She noted that the case had already drawn significant public attention, and there was a concern that any disclosed texts could be used for public relations purposes.
“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 the wrong hands,” Governski argued in court.
She further suggested that Baldoni’s side had “100 million reasons” to leak private messages, implying that doing so could serve their interests by influencing public perception.
Beyond protecting private conversations, Lively’s legal team also emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality regarding security measures for her, her husband, and their children. Her attorneys argued that there was no reason for anyone outside the case to have access to details about the family’s security protocols.
Baldoni’s Legal Team Rejects AEO Designation
On the other side, Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, strongly opposed the AEO request, calling it unnecessary and offensive. He insisted that Baldoni’s team had no intention of leaking information and argued that imposing an AEO restriction would unfairly shift the burden onto the defense.
Freedman also assured the court that Baldoni’s team had no interest in disclosing Lively’s medical or psychological records, attempting to dismiss concerns that such personal details would be exploited.
Judge Lewis Liman acknowledged both sides’ concerns but did not issue an immediate decision on the protective order. He did, however, indicate that if certain pieces of evidence were relevant to the case, the defense should have access to them.
Growing Concerns Over Safety and Public Scrutiny
Lively’s concerns over confidentiality extend beyond personal privacy. Her legal filings indicate that she and others associated with the case have been subjected to violent and threatening messages.
According to a letter filed in court on February 20, Lively’s legal team highlighted the dangers posed by the public nature of the case:
“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.”
This growing hostility has led Lively to push for increased protections, citing the potential risks to herself and those connected to the lawsuit.
Baldoni’s Team Accuses Lively of Controlling the Narrative
Baldoni’s legal team countered Lively’s request for heightened privacy protections, arguing that she had already made numerous details about the case public. In their response, they accused Lively of attempting to control what information was available to the public.
“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,” Baldoni’s attorneys stated.
They also rejected the argument that AEO protections were necessary, particularly since Lively’s original lawsuit had already laid out extensive allegations in a 138-page complaint. Baldoni’s team contended that if Lively had already made such details public, there was no justification for withholding other relevant evidence.
What Comes Next?
With both sides firmly positioned in their arguments, the next steps in the case will likely involve further legal negotiations over confidentiality measures. Judge Liman has yet to rule on the protective order, leaving the matter unresolved for now.
As the case progresses, the battle over privacy versus transparency remains a key issue. Lively’s team is focused on shielding sensitive communications, while Baldoni’s legal team argues against restrictions that could hinder their defense.
The legal dispute between Lively and Baldoni continues to unfold, with both parties standing firm in their positions. The outcome of this battle over evidence protection could shape how the case develops in the coming months.
Follow us to see more useful information, as well as to give us more motivation to update more useful information for you.
