Justin Baldoni’s Attorneys Claim Blake Lively Wants to ‘Prevent the Public’ from Seeing Evidence, Her Lawyers Fire Back

Lawyers for Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively aren’t seeing eye to eye on what information in their legal battle should remain private.

Lively’s attorneys, on Feb. 20, submitted their proposal for an enhanced protective order, asking for a category of “Attorney’s Eyes Only” to keep certain sensitive information under wraps in the discovery process.

In a letter to Judge Lewis J. Liman, they argued that the “case involving high-profile individuals and allegations of sexual harassment” called for heightened privacy. Having the details made public could end up “exposing them to threats” and “possible witness intimidation,” her legal team wrote, among other points.

On Feb. 25, Baldoni’s lawyers responded with a letter to the judge, questioning Lively’s push for privacy.

“Given how actively the Lively Parties have publicized and litigated Ms. Lively’s claims in the media, we are surprised to now learn how vehemently she wants to prevent the public from accessing material and relevant evidence,” they wrote.

His legal team said they are fine with the court’s suggested protective order and argued that Lively’s proposed protective order “is not warranted.”

“Ms. Lively has already publicized the alleged details of the so-called ‘harassment’ in her Amended Complaint,” they wrote, adding, “Therefore, Ms. Lively lacks a ‘good faith’ belief that there is any information of such a ‘personally sensitive nature’ that disclosure thereof to the parties ‘would unnecessarily violate [her] privacy rights….’ ”

Lively’s lawyers responded to Baldoni’s opposition, arguing in a Feb. 25 letter to the judge that Baldoni’s points rely on the concept that she intends to suppress evidence.

“Certain online content creators who frequently parrot the Wayfarer Parties’ line … have used similar misleading accusations,” her lawyers wrote, adding, “The travels of the mischaracterization embraced by the Opposition through this manufactured echo chamber, by itself, provides ample justification for a Protective Order that establishes adequate protections for third-party privacy interests.”

Within her amended complaint, which was filed last week, Lively’s attorneys claimed there are two female costars from It Ends With Us with allegations about Baldoni, 41, who are willing to testify against him.

They chose not to name those witnesses in order to “protect innocent bystanders rather than exposing them to further harm” amid the “dangerous climate of threats, harassment and intimidation” surrounding the case, according to the complaint.

However, the witnesses gave Lively, 37, “permission to share the substance of their communications,” her lawyers wrote, and agreed “they will testify and produce responsive documents in the discovery process.”

Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman has appeared to call Lively’s bluff by claiming in a statement the two unnamed costars “are clearly no longer willing to come forward or publicly support her claims.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

In December, Lively brought forth allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation when she sued Baldoni, his PR team and members of his company Wayfarer Studios.

Baldoni, who has denied those allegations, responded with a lawsuit of his own in January against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist and The New York Times, with defamation and extortion among the accusations. Their trial is now scheduled for March 2026.

To emphasize the need for a stronger protective order in the case, Lively’s attorney’s wrote in the Feb. 20 letter: “Ms. Lively, her family, other members of the cast, various fact witnesses, and individuals that have spoken out publicly in support of Ms. Lively have received violent, profane, sexist and threatening communications.”

Baldoni’s team responded in a statement the next day, saying they “do not condone dangerous rhetoric targeted toward anyone no matter the situation,” and that they have also faced threats during the legal dispute.