Judge in ‘It Ends With Us’ case grants Blake Lively further protections to limit sensitive information from being made public

The judge overseeing Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s legal battle granted much of Lively’s request for an expanded protective order. (Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

The judge overseeing Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s legal battle granted much of Lively’s request for an expanded protective order that aims to prevent some information, such as medical records and trade secrets related to future business projects, from being made public.

On Thursday, the judge said in his ruling that the court’s standard protective order would not be sufficient for the needs of Lively and Baldoni’s case, given the high-profile and sensitive nature of the case.

“These cases involve both business competitors and allegations of sexual harm,” the judge wrote, adding that discovery will unveil “confidential and sensitive business and personal information” and that the “risk of disclosure is great.”

Last month, Lively requested a heightened confidentiality agreement that would add more protections to prevent certain information from being leaked to the press. Lively’s attorneys had also cited in their February request to the judge privacy concerns relating to other high-profile third parties involved in the case.

“Several individuals and corporations on each side are in the business of public relations or media and have easy access to the press. The details of this case have been closely followed in the media, and each side has accused the other of litigating this case via the media,” the judge’s ruling added. “And where confidential information is not disclosed to the media, it may spread by gossip and innuendo to those in the tight artistic community in a position to do harm to one or the other of the parties but in a manner that might not be readily and immediately detected.”

The judge also said that medical information, security information and trade secret information pertaining to business and marketing plans for future projects would be marked as “attorneys’ eyes only,” meaning it will be protected information.

However, given the nature of a sexual harassment case, the judge acknowledged that certain highly “personal and intimate information about third parties” would be challenging to protect.

In a statement to CNN, attorneys for Lively said the judge “entered the protections needed to ensure the free flow of discovery material without any risk of witness intimidation or harm to any individual’s security.”

In an earlier filing, Lively’s attorneys said that ever since she first filed her sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against Baldoni in December 2024, she and others have been targeted with “violent, profane, sexist, and threatening communications” online, including pornographic images posted on her Instagram account. Because of this alleged online harassment — in addition to concerns regarding security information, medical information and information regarding their young children being leaked — Lively’s team had requested the strengthened protective order.

But Baldoni’s team told the judge that the court’s standard protective order sufficed, arguing in a letter filed in February that the additional restrictions proposed by Lively’s team were simply an effort to “shield” the public from evidence that could tarnish Lively’s image.

On Thursday, Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, said that he is “fully in agreement” with the judge’s decision to “provide a narrow scope of protections to categories such as private mental health records and personal security measures,” which he said have “never been of interest to us.”

“We remain focused on the necessary communications that will directly contradict Ms. Lively’s unfounded accusations,” Freedman added.

At a March 6 hearing regarding the matter, Freedman had said that additional restrictions were “unnecessary.”

Lively’s lawyers told the judge at the hearing that the actress and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, were concerned that their personal conversations have little relevance to the case but could still be leaked to the public to garner press attention.

“There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders,” Lively’s attorney Meryl Governski said.

Baldoni’s attorney said in court that it was “offensive that anyone would suggest that we would disregard a protective order.”

Lively’s attorney argued that there should be heightened restrictions to protect public figures involved in the case. “There is a significant chance of irreparable harm if marginal conversations with high profile individuals with no relevance to the case were to fall into wrong hands,” her attorney said at the hearing.

Freedman responded that Lively’s request for additional protections would give unfair and special treatment to “celebrity people” and “people who are powerful in the industry.”

The judge appeared to agree with the sentiment of not giving any special treatment to a celebrity case.

“A lot of what you are talking about is inherent in the nature of the case,” Judge Liman told Lively’s attorney in court. “If you sue a high-profile person in this industry, it’s going to get picked up by the press. The stuff that’s highly relevant is going to end up being disclosed.”

Throughout the legal battle between the former co-stars, Baldoni’s team has also objected to certain information being obtained in discovery.

After Lively issued subpoenas to phone carriers and internet providers to obtain more than two years’ worth of phone, text and email records from Baldoni and his team, the judge ruled that Lively’s request to was “overly intrusive and disproportionate to the needs of the case,” deciding that only certain records of communication that are “narrowly tailored to reveal relevant information” could be obtained for the case.

“This request implicates legitimate privacy interests,” the just wrote in that ruling.

After Lively was granted the expanded protective order, Freedman told CNN in a statement that Lively issuing those subpoenas was “exceedingly over broad.”