The legal storm swirling around the much-anticipated film adaptation of It Ends With Us has only intensified this August, as accusations, counterclaims, and courtroom maneuvers continue to play out among its star-studded cast and creative team. At the center of the maelstrom are director Justin Baldoni, actress Blake Lively, and rising star Isabela Ferrer, whose off-screen drama now rivals the plot twists of any Hollywood script.
The origins of this high-profile dispute trace back to late 2024, when Blake Lively, best known for her roles in Gossip Girl and A Simple Favor, accused director Justin Baldoni of sexual harassment during the production of It Ends With Us. Lively also alleged that Baldoni orchestrated a retaliatory online smear campaign against her. According to People, Baldoni, 41, denied all allegations and responded with a staggering $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, and The New York Times. However, that countersuit was dismissed in June 2025, leaving Lively’s original claims to proceed toward a federal trial scheduled for March 2026 in New York.
But the legal drama didn’t stop there. In recent months, the dispute has expanded to include Isabela Ferrer, the 24-year-old actress who portrayed the younger version of Lively’s character, Lily Bloom, in the film. On August 17, 2025, Ferrer filed an objection in court, accusing Baldoni and his team of harassment and bad faith tactics related to a subpoena she received. Ferrer’s lawyers argued that Baldoni’s efforts to serve her had crossed a line: “Baldoni made no effort to tailor the subpoena towards the production of new or different materials, demonstrating that the real aim of the Baldoni Subpoena, as well as the pending Motion, is to harass Ms. Ferrer,” Ferrer’s filing stated, as reported by Rolling Stone.
The roots of Ferrer’s involvement date back to February 2025, when she was first subpoenaed by Lively in connection with the ongoing legal battle. Ferrer, believing her legal costs should be covered by the production under an indemnification clause in her contract, requested that Wayfarer Studios—Baldoni’s company—pay her fees. According to Ferrer, Wayfarer agreed, but only if she would “surrender control” of her response to Lively’s subpoena. Ferrer’s legal team argued that this stipulation was “a transparent attempt to put financial pressure” on her and would prevent her from providing documents that revealed the full truth. Once she did respond to Lively’s subpoena, Ferrer claims, Baldoni’s team began “improperly attempting to exert control over” her actions.
The legal wrangling escalated further on August 12, 2025, when Baldoni filed a motion accusing Ferrer of being unresponsive to multiple attempts to serve her with a new subpoena. Ferrer’s lawyers objected to the possibility of being served by alternative means, arguing that the production had not made sufficient effort to tailor their requests or respect her contractual rights. Ferrer’s filing called on the court to deny Baldoni’s motion and to “consider appropriate sanctions against Baldoni for his bad faith tactics,” describing these actions as “the latest in a broader pattern of conduct by Baldoni to bully Ms. Ferrer.”
In a swift rebuttal filed on August 19, 2025, Baldoni’s legal team pointed out that it was Lively, not Baldoni, who had first subpoenaed Ferrer earlier in the year. They argued that Ferrer’s counsel had accepted service of Lively’s subpoena without objection and accused Ferrer and her lawyers of frustrating efforts to obtain discovery critical to the defense. In a bid to resolve the dispute, Baldoni’s team offered a stipulation: “Given the circumstances, the Wayfarer Parties are willing to stipulate that none of the parties will use any communication to, from or concerning Ms. Ferrer, or any testimony from her, in any manner in this action. That stipulation will satisfy Ms. Ferrer’s apparent desire to avoid involvement in the litigation and trial.”
Meanwhile, the legal teams for both Lively and Baldoni have continued their back-and-forth in federal court. On August 18, 2025, Wayfarer attorney Kevin Fritz filed an opposition to Lively’s motion for sanctions against Baldoni’s top lawyer, Bryan Freedman. Lively’s team had accused Freedman of “publicly slandering” their client and requested monetary sanctions, attorneys’ fees, a reprimand, and revocation of Freedman’s pro hac vice admission. Fritz, in his filing, countered that “Ms. Lively’s post-litigation conduct has done nothing to endear her to the public, the press or ‘content creators.’ A recent barrage of subpoenas has angered and alienated those already critical of Ms. Lively, forcing a number of them to seek this Court’s intervention.” He further argued that Lively’s own actions had contributed to the media frenzy she now decried, stating, “She conveniently ignores that she and her counsel have been less than shy about publicly bashing Mr. Freedman and the Wayfarer Defendants in the press.”
As the case barrels toward its March 2026 trial date, discovery disputes remain unresolved. On August 20, 2025, Judge Lewis Liman issued an order allowing the Wayfarer Parties until August 21 to respond to Lively’s requests for documents postdating December 2024, particularly those related to the alleged ongoing smear campaign. The judge noted, “The Wayfarer Parties respond that only certain production requests relate to the alleged ongoing smear campaign, which Lively has cited as the basis for seeking discovery postdating December 2024. In her reply memorandum of law, Lively provides a specific list of requests for which she seeks documents through the present. The Wayfarer Parties have not had an opportunity to respond to that filing. They are therefore permitted until August 21, 2025, to file a two-page letter brief addressing the extent to which discovery ‘through the present’ is or is not appropriate for the specific requests.”
Adding another layer to the drama, Lively’s much-anticipated deposition finally took place in July 2025 at her attorney’s New York office, with Baldoni in attendance. The deposition, portions of which were later leaked and sealed, only fueled further speculation and public scrutiny. According to Deadline, the leak of Lively’s sealed deposition and the intense legal maneuvering have contributed to a media spectacle that shows no signs of slowing down.
With accusations of harassment, bullying, and bad faith tactics flying in all directions, and with the court yet to rule on several key motions, the legal battle over It Ends With Us continues to cast a long shadow over the film’s release and the reputations of those involved. As the parties await Judge Liman’s next decisions, Hollywood—and the public at large—watch with bated breath to see how this blockbuster courtroom drama will unfold.
