Blake Lively Vs Justin Baldoni Battle Is “Feud Between PR Firms,” Judge Declares As Decision Punted Over What Material Lawyers Can Share (2025)

What’s going on between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is “a feud between PR firms.”

That blunt statement Thursday morning from federal Judge Lewis J. Liman set the tone and parameters of the protective order hearing today in the ever-expanding blowup between the It Ends With Us stars on what really took place during the making of the movie and the alleged online smear campaign that followed and perhaps continues.

Conducted virtually, with Baldoni, Ryan Reynolds and the SXSW bound Lively not in apparent attendance, today’s session was focused on the skirmish over how much information in the sprawling matter should be covered under the standard-model protective order. Lively and Reynolds’ side believe confidentially is so at risk and the impulse to leak the media by the other side is so great that an Attorney’s Eyes Only order is needed.

Building off the judge’s starting comment and obviously trying to avoid getting into the minutiae like much of this case has for better or worse, Lively and Reynolds’ attorney Meryl Conant Governski cut to the bottom line.

“The parties in this case, on both sides, include people whose entire living is made off providing information to the press and content creators,” the Willkie Farr & Gallagher lawyer said in the hearing. “There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders.”

Lead Baldoni lawyer Bryan Freeman rejected that premise today, as he has many times in previous filings and media appearances. “No one has any intent of harming Ms. Lively in any way” as to her allegations, the often-pugilistic litigator told the court. “My clients have a right to defend themselves … that is in no way abusing the victim.”

In that vein, off the top of the hearing that lasted about 70 minutes, Judge Liman made it clear he was aware of how the Vision PR-represented Lively and the TAG- and RWA-represented Baldoni’s clash was playing out in the media, and accusations that parties on both sides were leaking to the press.

To Freedman, who rarely lacks flare for a quote, a lot of this was simply Lively and Reynolds seeking to have the law bend to their desires, not necessarily the needs of justice. “What the other side is asking for because there is celebrity, because there is powerful people in the industry … somehow there is a different law that applies to them,” he said, addressing concerns about PR trade secrets and more coming out along with personal information.

With reference to articles that appear in Deadline and other outlets, Freedman noted it is not secret as to which firm represents which celebrities. “It is in no way a trade secret,” he said. The attorney also waved aside a discussion about a Miramax vs. Quentin Tarantino dispute from several years ago in which Freedman had sought a AEO order for his Oscar-winning director client. That “involved actual trade secrets” and the Pulp Fiction screenplay, an annoyed Freedman countered, “a very different matter.”

Perhaps to bring down the temperature for all parties in what has become a heated clash ever since Lively filed a complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation with California’s Civil Rights department on December 20, Liman at one point today tipped his judicial hat to reality in the digital age and in the justice system.

“Much of this information will become public as the case goes forward — for example in motions for summary judgment, and of course at trial,” he said near the end of the hearing. “There is a public interest in how the courts are being used that the court has to respect.”

Liman did not rule today, saying he is taking the matter under submission and will “give you my views soon.” With both sides previously rejecting the notion of a settlement as “premature” and having submitted amended complaints over the past month, the matter is currently set to go to trial on March 29, 2026.

While Lively’s sexual harassment claim that she first made with California’s CRD and reiterated in herNew Year’s Eve suitagainst Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios, CEO Jamey Heath, moneyman Steve Sarowitz, and publicists Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel is a major part of this matter, the retaliation claim involving the role of the media and the public record was at the legal and emotional heart of today’s hearing.

Lively insists a vicious “astroturfing” campaign was launched against her by Nathan’s TAG firm and Abel in mid-2024 to counter possible stories of alleged misconduct by Baldoni and others on the Sony-distributed IEWU. Abel herself in a now deleted posting has admitted measures were considered and planned as a typical protective move, but never enacted because “the internet was doing the work for us.”

“This is a unique case, certainly,” attorney Sigrid McCawley, representing Lively and Reynolds’ publicist Leslie Sloane and her Vision PR firm, said in a distinct understatement during the lawyer-heavy hearing. It should be noted, Sloane is trying to get herself and her company out of the high-profile case, as McCawley noted several times Thursday.

In that context, in a back-and-forth with Freedman, Judge Liman pointed out that both sides have alleged the other has “leaked confidential information … that are difficult to trace,” and that is why some form of AEO may be necessary.

“Your honor, no one is interested in what someone’s security is doing … not even remotely relative to the case at all,” Freedman responded in circumspect terms. “With respect to Ms. Lively’s medical records and psychological records … we would meet and confer, we have no intent of disclosing that,” he added, noting that he and his colleagues wouldn’t even disclose such potentially sensitive material to Baldoni and other members of the Wayfarer parties.

Talking umbrage with that, McCawley pointed to “trade secrets, business plans and strategies …discussions concerning other clients” of Vision PR as being the information they wanted protected under a AEO order. It’s “a much more reasonable way … to deal with this issue” when you have “competitive” parties like Nathan’s TAG and, at least for the time being, Sloane’s Vision PR, McCawley added. “Not just take Mr. Freedman’s word that he would hold it in good faith for some undisclosed time,” she added later in the proceedings.

Citing the Wayfarer parties’ proposed solution as “on-the-fly” and “ad-hoc,” Lively lawyer Governski accused Freedman at one point of trying to create “a whole new process that is essentially the AEO process.” Baldoni’s lawyer unsurprisingly rejected the claim, stressing that any AEO is simply unnecessary in his POV.

Also trying to get out of the case, the New York Times became a party here because of its text message-rich December 21 article “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” about Lively’s allegations. The media company was originally sued in Los Angeles Superior Court by Baldoni and his team for $250 million on New Year’s Eve, the same day the actress officially sued her IEWU co-star. Launching his own $400 million defamation and extortion action against Lively, Reynolds and Sloane on January 16, Baldoni dropped the West Coast NYT action in early February and added it to an amended complaint against the trio. To that, a lawyer for the NYT was at today’s hearing.

In a statement after today hearing, a spokesperson for Lively told Deadline: “All of the parties agree that there is sensitive information in this case that should be shielded from public disclosure — the Wayfarer Parties’ proposed order would do that. The dispute is about whether a narrow category ofalready non-publicinformation should be accessible only to attorneys rather than the parties.That type of provision is standard civil cases, including in litigation in which Bryan Freedman appeared as counsel.This additional protection would ensure thatthe defendants who have committed to spending $100 million todestroyingMs. Lively and her family do not have access to information that only attorneys need to see.”

Along with all this, as well as self-described “hired gun” and alleged Nathan pal Jed Wallace’s $7 million suit against Lively, Quinn Emanuel lawyers were participating in today’s hearing for PR chief Stephanie Jones and her Jonesworks firm. In a separate case, filed just before Christmas, Jones is suing Baldoni, Wayfarer, execs, crisis PR boss Nathan and Abel for defamation and breach of contract. Abel was an employee of Jonesworks and Baldoni was a client until last year when both bolted and Abel formed her own PR firm RWA Communications.

As the judge said, all about the PR firms.