Blake Lively’s legal battle with Justin Baldoni escalates amid ‘five mistresses’ court filing

The legal dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has taken a dramatic turn after court filings referenced “five mistresses”, triggering speculation about the case’s underlying tensions.

The phrase, which appeared in a sarcastic footnote submitted by Lively’s legal team, has raised questions about whether it was a strategic legal move or a deliberate attempt to influence public perception.

The dispute began when Lively’s team subpoenaed phone records from Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, arguing that they were necessary to investigate an alleged smear campaign against the actress. Baldoni’s lawyers strongly opposed the request, calling it overly broad and intrusive, warning that it could expose private communications unrelated to the case, including those with lawyers, doctors, and personal contacts.

During the legal back-and-forth, Baldoni’s legal team sarcastically suggested that Lively’s team was attempting to uncover details about “five mistresses” or “five psychiatrists.” In a notable strategic move, Lively’s lawyers included the phrase in a footnote within their court response, ensuring the reference would become part of the official record.

Legal analysts suggest that Lively’s decision to repeat the phrase may have been deliberate, knowing that court filings are publicly available and often scrutinised by the media. By embedding suggestive language in legal documents, her team may have been attempting to subtly shape the narrative surrounding the lawsuit without making a direct accusation.

Despite the attention the phrase has received, there is no evidence to support claims that Baldoni had five mistresses. His legal team has dismissed the reference as a distraction, accusing Lively’s team of using media-driven tactics instead of focusing on substantive legal arguments.

The controversy has already circulated widely online, with social media speculation amplifying discussions about Baldoni’s personal life. Some observers see the reference as a clever legal maneuver, while others view it as a questionable attempt to damage Baldoni’s reputation.

The case remains in the discovery phase, with Judge Lyman expected to rule on whether Lively’s team will be granted access to the requested phone records. Baldoni’s legal team has urged the court to dismiss the subpoenas, arguing that they constitute an invasion of privacy and exceed the scope of legitimate discovery.