A federal judge has ruled that Blake Lively’s claims for emotional distress against Justin Baldoni will no longer be considered in their ongoing legal battle. The decision comes amid heated exchanges between the parties over Lively’s refusal to turn over medical records relevant to the emotional distress allegations.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman denied Baldoni’s motion to compel Lively to provide a HIPAA release for access to therapy notes and other medical documents. The judge’s order was based on Lively’s representation that she intends to withdraw those specific claims. However, the court declined Lively’s request to dismiss the claims without prejudice — meaning she could potentially refile them later — without a formal agreement with Baldoni’s side. If the claims are not dismissed, the court will bar Lively from presenting any emotional distress evidence.
According to court filings, Baldoni’s attorneys argued that Lively sought to drop the emotional distress claims without releasing her medical information, thereby preventing the defense from disproving those claims. They accused Lively of attempting to preserve the right to refile after discovery closes while refusing to disclose evidence. Lively’s legal team, led by Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, dismissed the motion as a “press stunt” and criticized Baldoni’s lawyers for abusing court procedures. They stated that Lively’s withdrawal of the claims was voluntary and that she still intends to pursue emotional distress damages through other allegations, including sexual harassment and retaliation.
The dispute arises from a lawsuit filed by Lively in the Southern District of New York, where she alleges Baldoni sexually harassed her on the set of the 2024 film It Ends With Us and retaliated against her with a smear campaign. Baldoni has countersued Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, seeking $400 million in damages for extortion and defamation tied to a New York Times article.
Currently, six related lawsuits concerning the events surrounding the film are active across various courts. The ruling marks a significant development in this complex, high-profile legal conflict.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ