Justin Baldoni & Blake Lively Battle It Out on Protective Order Request

Days after Blake Lively requested a stronger protective order in her legal battle against “It Ends with Us” co-star Justin Baldoni, his team has a biting response.

In a letter to Judge Lewis J. Liman, obtained by The Post, Baldoni’s team said, “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 lawyers had originally agreed to the court’s model protective order, but not Lively’s proposed one which included “an Attorney’s Eyes Only ('AEO') category, which applies to 'Confidential Discovery Material of such a highly confidential and personal, sensitive, or proprietary nature that the revelation of such is likely to cause a competitive, business, commercial, financial, personal or privacy injury.”

Baldoni’s team wrote, “The Lively Parties have not explained and cannot explain why such a mechanism is insufficient.” 

The letter argued, “Ms. Lively has already publicized the alleged details of the so-called 'harassment' in her Amended Complaint. Therefore, Ms. Lively lacks a 'good faith' belief that there is any information of such a 'personally sensitive nature' that disclosure thereof to the parties 'would unnecessarily violate [her] privacy rights....'"

Lively’s team then fired back in a letter to the judge, claiming, “Certain online content creators who frequently parrot the Wayfarer Parties’ line... have used similar misleading accusations. The travels of the mischaracterization embraced by the Opposition through this manufactured echo chamber, by itself, provides ample justification for a Protective Order that establishes adequate protections for third-party privacy interests."

Lively’s team emphasized that the “case involving high-profile individuals and allegations of sexual harassment” required extra protection and privacy because the details going public would expose them to threats and “possible witness intimidation.” 

Blasting Baldoni’s team, Lively’s side wrote, “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. The inevitable byproduct of the Wayfarer Parties’ position will be a massive waste of party and judicial resources as parties (and potentially third parties) seek to convince counsel for the Wayfarer Parties that women do not forfeit all of their privacy interests simply because they have spoken out, or intend to speak out, against the Wayfarer Parties.”