Justin Baldoni Responds to Blake Lively’s Gag Order Request

Justin Baldoni’s legal team is fighting Blake Lively’s request for a gag order!

In legal docs obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, his legal team is arguing that his lawyer Bryan Freedman issued statements “required to protect a client from the substantial prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.”

According to his other lawyer Kevin Fritz, Lively’s media campaign against Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer has caused the actor to be “exiled from polite society” and led to damages “totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Fritz ended Thursday’s letter with the statement, “Having publicly made ruinous allegations that the Wayfarer Parties can prove are false, the Lively Parties now invoke attorney disciplinary rules as an intimidation tactic. The Lively Parties’ desire to force the Wayfarer Parties to defend themselves privately against allegations made publicly is not a proper basis for a gag order. It is tactical gamesmanship, and it is outrageous.”

Lively requested a protective order against Freedman after Baldoni’s team released unedited footage of a dance scene from their movie “It Ends with Us” to refute her claims of sexual harassment.

In Lively’s filing, obtained by “Extra,” the docs argue, “His conduct threatens to, and will, materially prejudice both the Lively Case and the Wayfarer Case by tainting the jury pool, because his statements are deliberately aimed at undermining the ‘character, credibility, [and] reputation’ of numerous relevant parties, id. 3.6(b)[1], and likewise includes ‘information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial,’ thereby creating a substantial risk of prejudice not just for Ms. Lively, but for numerous other parties in the matters.”

Following the release of the video, Freedman told “Extra” that they are preparing to share even more receipts, explaining, “Justin and team have the right to defend themselves with the truth and this is what we will be continuing to show with the upcoming website containing all correspondence as well as relevant videos that directly squash her claims.”

According to her legal team, Freedman’s recent statements about the leaked video violated “Rule 3.6 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prevents “[a] lawyer who is participating in… a civil matter” from “mak[ing] an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

“Mr. Freedman’s conduct is by design, not by accident, and this Court should consider carefully his history of litigating matters in the press when evaluating his request to be admitted pro hac vice, filed earlier today,” they wrote.

“It is worth asking whether Wayfarer’s lawyers have any intention of abiding by Rule 3.6, or whether they intend to continue selectively releasing evidence, without context or an opportunity to be questioned on that evidence, in the public domain at the same time they purport to litigate this matter in court. Rule 3.6, of course, requires parties to decide whether they want a jury of their peers to decide their claims, or whether they prefer to let the court of public opinion do so — doing both at once creates an impermissible risk of interfering with the judicial process, and it is not tolerated under New York law or the law of any other relevant jurisdiction.”