Blake Lively Vs. Justin Baldoni: Judge Threatens Moving Up March 2026 Trial If Lawyers Can’t Stop Matter Being “Litigated In The Press”​on February 3, 2025 at 6:09 pm

The first court hearing in the wide-ranging legal and media war between It Ends With Us stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni on Monday saw a federal judge threatening to move up the March 2026 trial-start date if the high-profile matter continues to be “litigated in the press.” Despite the protests of Baldoni’s media-active lead […]The first court hearing in the wide-ranging legal and media war between It Ends With Us stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni on Monday saw a federal judge threatening to move up the March 2026 trial-start date if the high-profile matter continues to be “litigated in the press.” Despite the protests of Baldoni’s media-active lead   

The first court hearing in the wide-ranging legal and media war between It Ends With Us stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni on Monday saw a federal judge threatening to move up the March 2026 trial-start date if the high-profile matter continues to be “litigated in the press.”

Despite the protests of Baldoni’s media-active lead lawyer Bryan Freedman that his client had “suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages” from Lively’s recent-ish claims of sexual harassment on the set of the film based on Colleen Hoover’s 2016 novel and an online “astroturfing” smear campaign leading up to the Sony movie’s August 2024 release, Judge Lewis J. Liman imposed an Empire State rule on both sides to mind their public p’s and q’s.

Essentially, neither side in the multi-prong matter is to say anything to the press that could taint a potential jury. How long that holds, knowing some of the personalities involved, is anyone’s guess.

Both sets of lawyers were circumspect outside following this morning’s hearing. Freedman reiterated that he wants case to move fast. Lively and Ryan Reynolds‘ top attorney Michael Gottlieb said he was “very happy” with how the nearly 90-minute hearing went.

Neither Lively nor Reynolds were in court today. Baldoni was not there either.

With all parties still aiming for a trial start next spring in the now-consolidated cases of Lively’s New Year’s Eve harassment and retaliation case against Baldoni, his PR team and financiers, and Baldoni’s initial January 16 $400 million defamation and extortion case against the Gossip Girl alum, Reynolds and their publicist Leslie Sloane, this morning’s session before Liman got both procedural and pointed quickly.

Depositions, discovery and dismissal of defendants were all in pole position amid the complexity of the case(s) that have captivated Hollywood even since Lively filed a complaint December 20 with California’s Civil Rights department. Still, for all that, highest on the pecking order inside the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse on Monday was Freedman’s so-called “pre-trial publicity.”

Even with more than few moves by Liman to keep the volume down, the packed Courtroom 15C also saw both sides heave accusations of media manipulation at each other.

Freedman pressed his clients’ claim that Lively was in cahoots with the New York Times for weeks if not more on their December 21 exposé “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” Pounding the media pavement even more than usual with stints on Today, Megyn Kelly and Chris Cuomo (both clients) and TMZ over then past few weeks, plus an IMPACT x Nightline: Blake vs Justin docu that debuted on January 30 (full disclosure: I’m in the ABC News docu, too), Freedman has tried to flip the narrative to portray Baldoni as the injured party battered and belittled by a Hollywood power couple that stole his film from him and sought to destroy him.

Let’s just say, with leaked behind-the-scenes footage, 2 a.m. voice messages and a cascade of text messages and internal emails, it’s gotten very personal.

After giving notice last week that they will seek to have Baldoni’s lawsuit tossed and having warned Freedman that he is getting close to defaming their client, Lively and Reynolds’ legal team was seeking a protective order to stop the media-friendly Freedman from more “extrajudicial statements” about Lively and her character, as well to stop him from taking the actress’ deposition in the case.

With an increasingly full agenda, today’s hearing marks the end of the first phase of the six-week-long multi-lawsuit conflict between Lively and Baldoni, with the matter now actually in front of a judge. Not unexpectedly, in a tussle that has played out from Day 1 in the courts and the court of public opinion, the lead-up to the session saw a squall of new filings, documents, statements and even the posting of a much-hyped full-transparency website promised by Freedman.

Earlier Monday, attorney Gottlieb told Judge Liman that Lively and Reynolds’ side will be putting its proposed protective order on Freedman before the courts by March 11 — a point that is now moot. Taking any deposition of Lively off the table for now, Liman made it clear that sooner would be better for that protective order to show up.

Liman also left no doubt that he was not impressed by attempts by Lively’s lawyers to decide who (aka not Freedman) gets to question Lively from the other side. If anyone missed that point, the judge made it clear to Gottleib, saying, “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition.”

The judge also made it sound like he thinks the 168-page attachment/timeline to the latest Baldoni complaint violates federal court procedure since it’s basically a narrative. He pointedly said to Freedman, “You can’t just attach a factual narrative” to a complaint. Liman went on to ask Freedman, “What is the purpose of that attachment?” Adding later, “You can’t just give me a whole bunch of documents.” Lively lawyer Gottleib said he’s going to move to have the document stricken — a move that looks likely based on the judge’s skepticism in court.

In the end, despite the attention to the timeline posted online by Baldoni’s team, the real meat and bones of Monday might be in January 31 amended complaint that has added the New York Times as a defendant to the $400 million case; Freedman told the court he is set to pull the plug on $250 million L.A. case that Baldoni filed on New Year’s Eve. At the other table, Gottlieb said his side had received no notice that the NYT was being added to the main case before it hit the press.

To that, the Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP partner said Lively and Reynolds may be filing an amended complaint of their own, and that it could include new claims.

The parties Monday never got to discuss the Nicepool controversy out of Reynolds’ blockbuster Deadpool & Wolverine from last year. But there will be time for that, especially if Disney lawyers have anything to say about it.