Judge Makes Ruling on Blake Lively’s Subpoena of Justin Baldoni’s Phone Records

Earlier this month, Blake Lively requested the phone records of Justin Baldoni, "This Ends with Us" producer Jamey Heath, and billionaire Wayfarer Studios co-founder Steve Sarowitz, and now the federal judge has made a ruling on the matter.

Lively had requested communications, like “ingoing and outgoing calls or text messages… within the time period of December 1, 2022 to the present,” believing that there would be a smoking gun to her smear campaign allegations, which Judge Lewis Liman found “overly intrusive and disproportionate to the needs of the case."

In court docs, obtained by Deadline, Liman said, “Lively mainly argues that the Subpoenas will help to identify ‘the larger network of individuals’ who perpetuated a negative media campaign against her. But according to Lively’s complaint, this negative campaign did not begin until approximately August 2024 … it is therefore unclear how communications to and from Wayfarer Parties in 2022 and 2023 would reveal individuals who participated in the campaign.”

While Lively must revise her subpoenas and narrow down the time frame, the judge is granting part of Lively’s request.

Liman explained, “The Wayfarer Parties may assert a privacy interest in their own phone records, but they have not provided any basis for asserting an interest in the communications of non-parties.”

In response to the judge’s decision, Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freeman told TMZ, “The Court must put a stop to Ms. Lively’s egregious attempt to invade our clients’ privacy. This is a big win. No matter how the Lively Parties may try to spin this decision, the Court saw their efforts for what they really are: a desperate fishing expedition intended to salvage their debunked claims long after they already savaged our clients’ reputations in The New York Times."

The judge has not ruled on Lively’s request for a stronger protective order, which would include “an Attorney’s Eyes Only category.”

Baldoni’s lawyers had originally agreed to the court’s model protective order, but not Lively’s proposed one, arguing, “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.”

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.”