The high-profile legal battle between actress Blake Lively and director Justin Baldoni has taken a new turn as Lively seeks to withdraw her claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. These claims were central to her lawsuit accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and creating a toxic work environment during the filming of the 2024 hit film It Ends With Us. The legal dispute, which has captivated Hollywood and the public alike, now faces a pivotal moment as the court weighs whether Lively must disclose her medical records or dismiss the emotional distress claims with or without prejudice.
Blake Lively initially filed a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department on New Year’s Eve 2024, targeting Justin Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios, and several executives and public relations personnel. Shortly after, she took the case to federal court, igniting a series of lawsuits that have since expanded to six related actions. Baldoni responded with a countersuit seeking damages exceeding $400 million, accusing Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, of attempting to destroy his career and reputation.
The latest development emerged on June 2, 2025, when Baldoni’s attorney Kevin Fitz of Meister Seelig & Fein filed a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, revealing that Lively’s legal team had informed them in writing of her intention to withdraw the emotional distress claims. These included the 10th Cause of Action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the 11th Cause of Action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, both integral parts of her December 31, 2024, complaint.
However, this withdrawal has not come without conditions. Baldoni’s legal team sought to compel Lively to identify her medical and mental health care providers, produce her mental health records, and provide duly executed HIPAA authorizations to access these records. Lively’s refusal to comply with these discovery requests has led to a standoff. According to the filing, Lively is willing to drop the claims only without prejudice, meaning she retains the right to re-file them later. Baldoni’s attorneys argue this is unfair, stating, "Ms. Lively can’t have it both ways." They demand a dismissal with prejudice to prevent the claims from being resurrected at an unknown future date without the opportunity for discovery.
In response, Lively’s lead attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb vehemently criticized Baldoni’s legal maneuvers as a "press stunt," asserting they are merely "streamlining and focusing" their case for trial. They contended that the retaliatory claims filed by Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios have exposed them to "expansive new damages claims under California law," which has rendered some of Lively’s original claims unnecessary. Despite withdrawing the specific emotional distress claims, Lively continues to allege emotional distress within other claims, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, seeking "massive additional compensatory damages" across all allegations.
The dispute over medical records is a standard but sensitive aspect of litigation involving claims of emotional or physical injury. Typically, the defense is entitled to review relevant medical information to challenge the plaintiff’s assertions. What sets this case apart is Lively’s midstream attempt to drop key emotional distress claims to avoid producing potentially damaging medical evidence. An insider familiar with the case told DailyMail.com that Lively’s legal team hoped to quietly ditch the emotional distress elements to prevent scrutiny of her health records.
Adding to the complexity, the legal saga has included dramatic moments such as Baldoni’s attempt to subpoena pop superstar Taylor Swift, who was dragged into the dispute over allegations that Lively threatened to unleash her and her husband Ryan Reynolds — referred to as "my dragons" — against Baldoni if he did not acquiesce to her demands. Swift’s subpoena was ultimately withdrawn following legal objections, but the episode underscored the high stakes and public nature of the case.
The film at the heart of the controversy, It Ends With Us, based on Colleen Hoover’s 2016 bestseller, was a box office success, grossing $351 million worldwide against a $25 million budget. The production’s fallout, however, has had real-world consequences. Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency WME, the same agency representing Lively and Reynolds, amid the swirling allegations and their impact on the project.
Further scrutiny has been placed on some of Lively’s allegations, including a claim that Baldoni nuzzled her neck and told her, "you smell so good," during a dance scene. Raw footage later revealed the microphones were on, and the conversation actually pertained to the scent of Lively’s fake tan, casting doubt on the initial claim. Additionally, a shell lawsuit filed by Lively’s company Vanzan against anonymous parties was revealed to be a strategic move to subpoena publicist Stephanie Jones for a phone containing messages between Jones and crisis PR Melissa Nathan. These messages were used to support Lively’s claims of a smear campaign, but Baldoni’s team released the full, unedited conversations, challenging the selective portrayal.
Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman described the Vanzan lawsuit as a "sham" and a "flagrant abuse of process," accusing Lively and Reynolds’ company of filing a fictitious suit solely to gain subpoena power without oversight. Meanwhile, Baldoni has bolstered his legal team with Ellyn S. Garofalo, a seasoned female litigator with over three decades of courtroom experience who previously worked with Taylor Swift’s law firm Venable LLP. Garofalo’s addition is seen as a significant strategic move in the ongoing legal war.
The trial date is set for March 9, 2026, and despite the withdrawal of the emotional distress claims, the broader legal battle over sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and the alleged smear campaign continues unabated. Both parties have denied the allegations against them, and the court’s forthcoming decisions on discovery and the scope of claims will shape the course of this high-profile Hollywood showdown.
As the case unfolds, it remains a stark reminder of the complexities and challenges involved when personal grievances, legal strategy, and public scrutiny collide in the entertainment industry’s spotlight.
