Judge Blocks Blake Lively’s Subpoenas — and Justin Baldoni’s Lawyers Fire Back Over Leak Claims

Judge Blocks Blake Lively’s Subpoenas — and Justin Baldoni’s Lawyers Fire Back Over Leak Claims.

In the latest turn in one of Hollywood’s most bitter ongoing disputes, a federal judge in Manhattan has blocked most of Blake Lively’s attempts to subpoena the legal team of her It Ends With Us co-star, Justin Baldoni.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman effectively shields Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, from having to turn over communications and documents Lively claimed would expose a coordinated “smear campaign” against her. However, the judge left a narrow path for some limited discovery—though only after Freedman’s firm confirmed no such records exist.

---

The Background: From Film Set to Federal Court

The legal drama began in December 2024, when Lively publicly accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during the filming of their romantic drama It Ends With Us. Her allegations were first reported by The New York Times, igniting a wave of press coverage and triggering multiple lawsuits in both California and New York.

According to court filings, Lively claims Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, retaliated by orchestrating an online campaign to damage her reputation. She alleged that Freedman enlisted some of his other celebrity clients—including media figures like Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, and gossip blogger Perez Hilton—to speak out against her on social media and in the press.

---

Why the Judge Said “No” to Most of Lively’s Requests

In a 17-page opinion (CourtHouse News), Judge Liman made two key findings:

1. Attorney-Client Privilege & Work Product Doctrine Apply
   Many of Lively’s subpoena requests sought emails, phone records, and media communications between Freedman and his clients. Under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court precedent (Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)), such material is generally protected from disclosure unless the party seeking it can demonstrate substantial need.

2. Speculation Is Not Enough
   Lively’s lawyers argued Freedman may have given influencers discounted legal fees in exchange for public attacks on Lively. The judge found this theory “speculative” and said it could be tested by gathering evidence from other sources—such as the influencers themselves—rather than breaching the protections surrounding opposing counsel.

“Lively does not assert defamation claims against Freedman personally, but against the Wayfarer Parties,” Liman wrote, underscoring that her case hinges on Baldoni’s actions, not his lawyer’s private communications.

---

The Narrow Exception—and Why It Doesn’t Change Much

The only subpoena requests Liman didn’t quash were those seeking agreements or payments between Freedman’s law firm and the named content creators. But during a recent hearing, Freedman’s colleague, Ellyn Garofalo, told the court:

“We certainly did not pay any content creators.”

With no records to produce, the exception is effectively moot.

---

What This Means for Lively’s Legal Strategy

This ruling forces Lively’s legal team to pivot. Instead of targeting Baldoni’s counsel directly, they’ll need to:

• Subpoena or depose third-party influencers to uncover any collaboration.

• Seek public statements, social media posts, and financial records from those individuals.

• Refocus on evidence tying Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios directly to any reputational harm.

Legal experts note that federal courts are generally reluctant to pierce the veil of attorney-client communications, especially when alternative discovery methods exist.

---

Update – August 7, 2025: Baldoni’s Lawyers Deny Deposition Leak Allegations

In a new twist to the ongoing dispute, Justin Baldoni’s legal team has formally denied Blake Lively’s claim that they leaked details from her July 31 deposition to the media.

In an August 6 court filing, Baldoni’s attorneys argued that Lively “does not cite any evidence” for her allegation, adding, “This is not surprising as there is none.” They suggested any leak could have originated from other sources, including Lively’s own team, her husband Ryan Reynolds, or even administrative and catering staff present during the deposition.

Lively’s spokesperson responded the following day, saying her team was “very pleased with the outcome of her deposition” and looked forward to questioning Baldoni and other co-defendants soon. They stressed that deposition testimony is confidential evidence and should only be presented at trial under a judge’s supervision.

The legal fight also expanded to include gossip blogger Perez Hilton, whom Lively accuses of publishing over 500 negative posts and videos about her, echoing alleged messaging from Baldoni’s camp. Court filings claim Hilton has used disparaging nicknames for Lively and is now fighting a subpoena for his records in federal court.

The papers document that Hilton has used a slew of slurs and “mocking” epithets about Lively, including calling her “Blackface Blake”, “Lying Lively”, “Ku Klux Khaleesi” and “Litigious Lively”.

A trial is currently scheduled for March 2026, where both Lively and Baldoni are expected to testify.

---

Real-Life Example: When Privilege Wins

This isn’t the first time Hollywood litigation has hit a wall over privilege issues. In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), the Supreme Court reinforced that communications between attorneys and their clients are sacrosanct, even if they might reveal unflattering truths. Lively’s case mirrors this principle: no matter how high-profile the parties, the law treats privilege the same.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why did the judge block most of Blake Lively’s subpoenas?
Because they sought privileged communications and speculative evidence that could be obtained through other discovery avenues.

2. Does this mean Lively’s case is over?
No. This ruling applies only to the New York subpoenas. Her California claims and other aspects of the dispute remain active.

3. Can Lively still go after the influencers?
Yes. She can directly subpoena them for documents, social media records, and testimony—provided the requests are narrowly tailored and relevant.

---

Sources & References

---

Actionable Takeaways

• For litigants: Subpoenas targeting opposing counsel face intense judicial scrutiny—be prepared to show necessity and lack of alternative sources.

• For attorneys: Preserve privilege by maintaining strict separation between client advocacy and public relations.

• For public figures: Media narratives can influence public perception, but court rulings hinge on legal relevance and admissibility—not tabloid impact.

---

Related Articles