A federal judge ruled on Thursday to limit the disclosure of certain sensitive information during the ongoing legal battle between actress Blake Lively and “It Ends With Us” director and co-star Justin Baldoni.
Lively, 36, has filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. In response, Baldoni has countersued Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, for defamation.
During a hearing on Thursday, Judge Lewis Liman granted Lively’s request to limit access to certain discovery materials, ruling that these documents should be restricted to attorneys’ eyes only. The ruling comes as the case involves high-profile figures, including well-known publicists, and Lively’s legal team had raised concerns that disclosing sensitive materials to their clients could lead to leaks.
The materials that will be kept confidential include “trade secrets” such as business and marketing plans, as well as details about upcoming creative projects. Additionally, sensitive information such as medical records, security measures, and highly personal or intimate details about third parties will be protected under the judge’s order.
This is to keep her friendship with Taylor Swift.
— Lizzy B (@LizzyBPemberly) March 13, 2025
“These cases involve both business competitors and allegations of sexual harm,” Judge Liman wrote. “Discovery will necessarily include confidential and sensitive business and personal information. The risk of disclosure is great.”
The judge highlighted the potential harm that could arise from the circulation of confidential information within the entertainment industry. Even if the sensitive details do not make it to the press, there is still a significant risk that they could spread through gossip or innuendo within the close-knit artistic community, potentially damaging the reputations of those involved.
ADVERTISEMENT
While Baldoni’s legal team agreed that certain materials should remain confidential, they objected to Lively’s request that the documents be limited to attorneys’ access only. Baldoni’s attorneys argued that the additional layer of secrecy would create unnecessary complications, making it harder to litigate the case and potentially leading to further legal disputes regarding confidentiality designations.
Judge Liman ultimately decided not to fully grant Lively’s request, narrowing the scope of confidentiality to include only documents that are “highly likely” to cause “significant” harm if disclosed. The judge expressed confidence that these provisions would help streamline the discovery process.
“The Moving Parties have shown good cause for a limited AEO provision and have shown that entering such a provision now is critical to the just and speedy (if not necessarily ‘inexpensive’) determination of the case,” he wrote.
Complete bullshit because she didn’t have any issue using Swift as a means of intimidation. @taylorswift13 dodged a bullet.
— Beth (@BKMidwestMom) March 13, 2025
At a previous hearing, the judge acknowledged that the nature of the case would likely involve the public disclosure of sensitive and potentially damaging information. He noted that when high-profile individuals are involved in legal disputes, the details often attract media attention.
“If you sue a high-profile person in this industry, it’s going to get picked up by the press,” Judge Liman said. “The stuff that’s highly relevant is going to end up being disclosed.”
ADVERTISEMENT
A spokesperson for Lively expressed approval of the judge’s decision, calling it a victory for the actress in the ongoing litigation.
“Today, the Court rejected the Wayfarer Parties’ objections and entered the protections needed to ensure the free flow of discovery material without any risk of witness intimidation or harm to any individual’s security,” the spokesperson said. “With this order in place, Ms. Lively will move forward in the discovery process to obtain even more of the evidence that will prove her claims in court.”
As the case progresses, both Lively and Baldoni continue to face intense scrutiny, and their legal teams will now focus on navigating the discovery process with the added protections in place. The case could have significant implications for both parties, and with such sensitive issues at stake, the public’s attention will likely remain fixed on how it unfolds.
