Blake Lively’s legal team accuses Justin Baldoni’s lawyers of misconduct in ‘It Ends With Us’ dispute

Blake Lively’s lawyers accuse Justin Baldoni’s team of deposition misconduct, say sex history questions were improper

Blake Lively’s legal battle connected to ‘It Ends With Us’ has intensified after her lawyers filed a motion seeking sanctions against attorneys representing Justin Baldoni. The filing accuses Baldoni’s legal team of disruptive and inappropriate behaviour during depositions, including laughter, extended speeches and repeated objections that allegedly slowed proceedings and interfered with testimony.

Central to the dispute is the conduct of questioning directed at Lively, particularly around her romantic and sexual history. Her lawyers argue that such lines of inquiry are irrelevant to the harassment and retaliation claims she has brought against Baldoni and others involved with the film. In written correspondence to Baldoni’s attorneys, including Bryan Freedman, Lively’s team stated clearly that her sexual or romantic past has no bearing on the issues before the court and should not be part of the examination process.

The motion references the rape shield law, which limits the use of a complainant’s sexual history in legal proceedings involving sexual misconduct. Lively’s lawyers say invoking this protection became necessary after what they describe as repeated attempts to push boundaries during depositions. According to the filing, the situation escalated during the deposition of defence expert Nicole Alexander, where Lively’s team claims Baldoni’s lawyers impeded progress through excessive objections and commentary.

This is not the first time Lively’s legal team has sought court intervention. Previous filings accused Baldoni’s lawyers of attempting to litigate the case through media statements and of failing to properly disclose evidence during discovery. Baldoni’s side has rejected those characterisations and has filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Lively’s allegations amount to a series of minor grievances rather than actionable misconduct. Lively’s lawyers counter that argument by asserting the case reflects an effort by her co star and director to avoid accountability for creating a hostile working environment on set.

The court has scheduled a mandatory settlement conference for February, while a hearing on the summary judgment motion and one of the sanctions requests is expected in January. The trial itself has already been delayed, with a new start date set for May.

Online reaction has been swift and divided. Social media platforms have seen heated discussion, with some users expressing support for Lively’s stance on boundaries during legal proceedings, while others accuse both sides of turning the case into a public spectacle. Entertainment forums and comment sections have also debated the broader implications for how harassment claims in film productions are handled, particularly when high profile figures are involved.