The judge presiding over the legal dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni approved a significant portion of Lively’s petition for a broader protective order. This order seeks to shield certain details, including medical records and confidential business information regarding upcoming projects, from becoming public.
In a ruling on Thursday, the judge stated that the standard protective measures of the court fall short of addressing the unique requirements of this high-profile and sensitive case.
The judge explained in his ruling that the case involves competition between businesses as well as accusations of sexual misconduct, noting that the legal discovery process would expose confidential and sensitive business and personal data, posing a significant risk of such information becoming public.
Last month, Lively had sought a more stringent confidentiality agreement to enhance safeguards against the unauthorized release of specific details to the media.
In their request from February, Lively’s lawyers also highlighted privacy concerns regarding other well-known third parties implicated in the case.
“Several individuals and corporations on each side are in the business of public relations or media and have easy access to the press. The details of this case have been closely followed in the media, and each side has accused the other of litigating this case via the media,” the judge added in his ruling.
“And where confidential information is not disclosed to the media, it may spread by gossip and innuendo to those in the tight artistic community, in a position to do harm to one or the other of the parties, in a manner that might not be readily and immediately detected.”
Furthermore, the judge determined that sensitive information like medical, security, and trade secret details related to future business and marketing strategies would be classified as “attorneys’ eyes only,” ensuring its protection.
However, the judge recognized the difficulty in safeguarding highly personal and intimate details about third parties in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
In response to the ruling, Lively’s attorneys said the judge has implemented the necessary protections to facilitate the safe exchange of discovery materials without any risk of intimidating witnesses or jeopardizing any individual’s security.
Lively’s legal team mentioned that since filing her sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against Baldoni in December 2024, there has been targeted harassment online against her and others, including the posting of pornographic images on her Instagram.
This alleged online harassment, coupled with concerns about the security of information concerning their young children, led Lively’s team to request the reinforced protective order.
However, Baldoni’s representatives argued that the standard protective order was adequate, claiming in a February letter that Lively’s team’s request for further restrictions was merely an attempt to prevent the public from seeing evidence that could negatively affect her reputation.
On Thursday, Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, expressed full support for the judge’s decision to apply limited protections to categories like private mental health records and personal security measures, which he claimed were never their concern.
“We are concentrating on the essential communications that will directly challenge Ms. Lively’s baseless allegations,” Freedman added.
During a hearing on March 6, Freedman stated that additional restrictions were unnecessary.
At the same hearing, Lively’s attorneys voiced concerns that personal discussions involving the actress and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, might be irrelevant to the case but could still be leaked to attract media attention.
“There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders,” Lively’s attorney Meryl Governski said.
Baldoni’s lawyer countered in court, finding it offensive that anyone would suggest that they would ignore a protective order.
Lively’s lawyer argued for stricter restrictions to protect public figures involved in the case, noting a significant risk of irreparable damage if minor conversations with prominent figures unrelated to the case were to be disclosed improperly.
Freedman countered that Lively’s demand for extra protections would unfairly favor celebrities and influential industry figures.
Judge Liman concurred, noting in court that such attention is typical when suing high-profile individuals in this sector. He stated that relevant information would inevitably be disclosed.
Throughout this legal conflict, Baldoni’s team has also opposed the acquisition of certain discovery information.
Following Lively’s issuance of subpoenas to telecommunications providers to secure more than two years of phone, text, and email records from Baldoni and his team, the judge deemed her request excessively intrusive and not proportionate to the case’s needs, ruling that only certain communication records that are narrowly focused on revealing pertinent information would be allowed.
“This request implicates legitimate privacy interests,” the judge stated in his decision.
After being awarded the extended protective order, Freedman stated that Lively’s extensive subpoena was “exceedingly overbroad.”
