Judge Rules Blake Lively’s Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni Are Officially Dead

by

In the Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni legal case, the presiding judge has ruled that the actress’ claims of emotional distress are dismissed. This decision follows a series of heated exchanges between both parties, where Baldoni’s legal team requested access to Lively’s medical records and she contested this demand.

In a ruling made this morning, Judge Lewis Liman has turned down Baldoni’s request to force the case forward, stating that it was based on the Plaintiff’s promise to withdraw the pertinent claims. Meanwhile, Lively’s petition for the court to dismiss her tenth and eleventh allegations due to an agreement between the parties to drop these specific allegations has been rejected, but not permanently. The parties are given the option to revisit this issue by filing a formal motion in the future. It is also important to note that if the claims are not dropped, Judge Liman will prohibit Lively from presenting any evidence related to emotional distress. In other words, the court has temporarily declined Lively’s request, leaving room for her to resubmit it at a later time if necessary.

In essence, Judge Liman denied Lively’s potential request to alter her decision regarding the disclosure of her medical records.

Lively has the option to negotiate with Baldoni to drop the claims permanently (which means they cannot be refiled), or she could gamble by asking the judge to discard the claims without a settlement in an attempt to get the court to dismiss them without prejudice. Either route, Lively’s lawyers will no longer be able to bring forth evidence regarding her emotional distress claims.

Baldoni’s legal representatives chose not to provide a statement regarding the verdict. In response, Lively’s attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb deemed their request for compulsion as entirely unnecessary.

OR

Baldoni’s lawyers refused to speak about the court’s decision. On the other hand, Lively’s lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, considered their application to enforce as completely superfluous.

OR

Baldoni’s attorneys remained silent on the judgement. Conversely, Lively’s legal team, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, viewed their petition to compel as utterly unnecessary.

The court refused Wayfarer’s request for a particular action, as stated. He suggested that the involved parties should carry on their negotiations regarding the specifics of withdrawing two out of fifteen allegations voluntarily. Ms. Lively has proposed to abandon these claims since they are no longer relevant, but she will persist in seeking compensation for emotional distress through other charges in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation.

On Monday, I found out that Baldoni’s legal team filed a motion requesting that the actress provide a HIPAA release, allowing them access to her therapy notes and other pertinent information. This is because she expressed a wish to abandon her claims instead of cooperating. In cases like this, where there are physical or emotional injury allegations, it’s common practice for the defense to scrutinize the plaintiff’s medical records to understand the source and extent of the supposed distress.

As a film enthusiast, I’d express it like this:

In a recent filing, it was stated that my legal team has advised me that I am withdrawing my [infliction of emotional distress] claims. However, contrary to the Wayfarer Parties’ reasonable request, I have chosen not to withdraw these claims with prejudice. This means I am only willing to abandon these claims in a way that allows me to potentially re-file them at an undetermined time, either in this court or another, after the discovery period has ended. Essentially, I am choosing to withhold the information and documents needed to disprove my emotional distress or their involvement, while still retaining the option to bring these claims back at a later date.

In their counterargument, Lively’s legal team labelled Baldoni’s filing as a publicity stunt and asked the court to penalize Baldoni’s lawyers for misusing court documents. They also requested that the court deny and dismiss the motion to compel Lively. The filing stated that Baldoni’s lawyers made two significant inaccuracies. First, they alleged that Lively has withheld medical and mental health information, but Lively’s attorneys clarified that this information is only relevant to Lively’s personal injury claims, which she had already indicated she was abandoning. To claim that Lively has refused to disclose any information related to these claims is intentionally misleading to the court and the public. Second, they claimed that Lively had refused to properly agree to a dismissal. However, this implies that there was some negotiation or disagreement regarding the dismissal, which was not the case.

The events unfold in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, as Lively takes legal action against Baldoni, alleging sexual harassment during the filming of “It Ends With Us” and a subsequent defamatory smear campaign. In response, Baldoni, who directed and co-starred in the successful Sony movie about domestic violence, has filed a lawsuit against Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for $400 million, accusing them of attempted extortion and damaging his reputation via a New York Times article. Currently, there are six ongoing lawsuits related to the set events and the upcoming 2024 release of “It Ends With Us,” being handled in different courts.

Read More

2025-06-03 20:52