Both Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively filed letters to the court yesterday, concerning the scope of their subpoenas. The attorneys of both the actors met and conferred regarding the matter. Lively’s team had agreed to limit the scope of the subpoenas, making three crucial changes. However, Baldoni’s attorneys argued that it still wasn’t limited enough.
Baldoni and Lively’s attorneys also went against each other about a protective order filed by the latter. The order sought to protect “Discovery Material” and make them “Attorney’s Eyes Only” without revealing them to the public. Baldoni’s attorneys have claimed that the order is not warranted.
Justin Baldoni doesn’t agree with Blake Lively’s limit of scope for subpoenas
With a year to go in the court war between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively, the two sides have already started preparing for their court battle. The attorneys of both the It Ends With Us stars met to discuss the limit of scope for subpoenas and filed letters to the court yesterday. Baldoni’s attorneys are not satisfied with the scope limit set by Lively’s team.
After their discussions, Lively’s side had allegedly proposed three changes to their limit of scope. They shared that they are not requesting “content-based information” in their subpoena. Initially, their ask was for “all documents” from Baldoni. Lively’s attorneys also shared that they were no longer asking for “data logs” or “cell site location data”.
Lively’s side agreed to make the following changes:
1. Instead of asking for “All Documents,” they’re now going to specify explicitly that they’re not requesting content-based information (aka, no substantive communications).
2. They’re no longer asking for “data logs.”
3.… pic.twitter.com/JJhlrZ5amM
— Legal Bytes 🍽💙 (@legalbytesmedia) February 25, 2025
However, Lively’s team doesn’t limit the scope of the subpoena to only specific phone numbers of individuals involved in the events mentioned in the complaint. They want the phone and text logs (not including the content-based information in them) between the parties/third parties in the litigation and anyone else. Baldoni’s team has objected to this scope of the subpoena.
Lively’s attorneys argue that these phone and text logs carry “vitally important information about the phone numbers defendants contacted” which they claimed to be relevant to her defamation claims. However, they have not made it clear what this vital information is.
Lively’s side argues that this would reveal “vitally important information about the phone numbers defendants contacted, and when they did so, each of which is highly relevant to Ms. Lively’s retaliation and defamation claims…”
But they don’t say what they think that “vitally… pic.twitter.com/zdClTFkcOj
— Legal Bytes 🍽💙 (@legalbytesmedia) February 25, 2025
They also claimed that this information is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” A judge is yet to rule on the letters, however, Lively’s team needs to get more specific in their claims for a widely-scoped subpoena like this one.
Justin Baldoni wants to make more evidence public, but Blake Lively refuses
Blake Lively has sought stronger protections for her and her friends in the legal case against Justin Baldoni. She shared in the order that she and those who have spoken in support of her have received “violent, profane, sexist, and threatening communications” (via Fox News).
The order particularly mentioned that one witness received a written threat which read that the “witness’s family would be sexually assaulted and killed unless the witness agreed to ‘make a statement and give the truth’”. The order claimed that certain discoveries in the legal battle would create “defined, specific and serious injury” to the parties and non-parties involved.
Her order sought to protect the “business, commercial, financial or personal interests” of certain “high-profile individuals”, which many believe to be a clause made for Taylor Swift. Her attorneys also claimed that Lively’s amended complaints include two female co-stars as witnesses with allegations against Baldoni (via PEOPLE). They didn’t want these witnesses’ names to go public for their safety.
However, Baldoni’s attorneys claimed that Lively’s proposed protection order “is not warranted.” They claimed that Lively had “already publicized the alleged details of the so-called ‘harassment’ in her Amended Complaint”. Lively’s lawyers responded that “the travels of the mischaracterization” used by Wayfarer and online content creators supporting them provided “ample justification” for a protective order.
Baldoni’s team can file their own version of a protective order until March 11 so that the judge can review it before issuing a final version of it. The trial in the case is set for March 2026.
This post belongs to FandomWire and first appeared on FandomWire
