Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Deadline is pretty harsh

https://deadline.com/2025/06/blake-lively-emotional-distress-claims-dismissed-1236421811/

As both sides took to the court docket and the media Monday to fight over how Lively would or would not withdraw her intentional emotional distress claims from her New Year’s Eve filed suit against Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios, execs and publicists, the judge shut the whole thing down Tuesday lickety-split with a rebuke of Lively’s side.

“Lively’s request that ‘because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively’s tenth and eleventh causes of action… the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice’ is denied without prejudice to renewal,” the NYC-based federal official (and brother of director Doug Liman) added. “The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion.”

As a kicker, a day after Lively’s lawyers exclaimed their client in not completely abandoning her emotional distress claims, Judge Liman made where he sits on all this perfectly clear: “For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress. SO ORDERED”

After all the hoopla of yesterday’s letters to the judge and weekend email exchanges between attorneys for Lively and Baldoni, lawyers and representatives for the latter were mum Tuesday, offering a telling “no comment” on Judge Liman’s move in their favor. For Lively, who now has no window to shift strategy and release her requested medical and therapy records, there was a sidestepping of her loss and a repeat of what her team put out on Monday.

[Anonymous]

Variety

Judge Rules Blake Lively’s Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni Are Officially Dead

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-emotional-distress-dead-1236416897/

The judge overseeing the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni lawsuit has decided that the actress’ claims for emotional distress are dead. The ruling comes after a tense back in forth between the dueling sides, with Baldoni’s lawyers filing a motion to compel her to turn over her medical records and Lively fighting that move.

Judge Lewis Liman wrote this morning that Baldoni’s motion to compel is denied “based on Plaintiff’s representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn. Lively’s request that ‘because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively’s tenth and eleventh causes of action . . . the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice’ is denied without prejudice to renewal. The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion. For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.”

In short, Judge Liman shut down the possibility of Lively changing her mind and turning over her medical records.

Lively can choose to try to reach an agreement with Baldoni about dismissing the claims with prejudice — meaning without the right to refile — or she can roll the dice and ask the judge to dismiss the claims without an agreement in a bid to have the court dismiss them without prejudice. Either way, Lively’s attorneys can no longer present evidence of her alleged emotional distress claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

Nope, I was going off the judge’s direct language:

For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.

Baldoni won’t agree to dismissal with prejudice and I don’t think the judge will either.

That seems wrong, because if he wasn’t open to considering dismissal without prejudice at this stage, seems like he certainly wouldn’t have invited Luvely to submit a new motion requesting same. He may ultimately reject it, but he’s open to it (and dismissal w/o prejudice is common where SOL hasn’t yet run and no MTD is pending).

I disagree, he could have dismissed without prejudice today if he really wanted to stick it to Baldoni. It’s a warning to Gottlieb, either sell Freedman on dismissal with prejudice (ie. By agreeing to certain discovery in advance if claims are brought in future) or risk a dismissal with prejudice from me.

This is not a situation where the claim needs to be repled for clarity, where a dismissal without prejudice would be customary. Lively is refusing to produce certain types of evidence and the normal consequence for that is losing the ability to bring a claim relating to such evidence altogether.

This was my post and I am not the person who posted the articles that support my take. Thanks for that! And take the L, Blake bot.

[Anonymous]

I posted the articles! The media narrative is shifting - articles are calling this a loss for Blake and a win for Justin.

Variety couldn’t be any clearer with their headline!

[Anonymous]

Freedman clearly has some outlets on speed dial to get his spin out. 6 hours after the decision I guess People will put out a story that makes it sound like a win for Blake. May as well wait for the print edition lol. I thought the decision was fair to both sides, not a devastating blow to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman clearly has some outlets on speed dial to get his spin out. 6 hours after the decision I guess People will put out a story that makes it sound like a win for Blake. May as well wait for the print edition lol. I thought the decision was fair to both sides, not a devastating blow to anyone.

Blake’s decision to drop emotional distress is devastating to her case, but mostly self inflicted devastation.

[Anonymous]

I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

Not pursuing the claim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

Yes, thank you, that is exactly why I'm confused. This seems like a weird backend way to dismiss Lively's emotional distress claim. Is it because Freedman showed she wasn't negotiating discovery in good faith? But if so, why isn't the ruling clear on that point?

I feel like there is some legal nuance here I'm just not getting because at first I assumed this was good for Lively (because motion to compel was rejected) but then the outcome seems obviously bad for Lively and my brain is just struggling to compute it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman clearly has some outlets on speed dial to get his spin out. 6 hours after the decision I guess People will put out a story that makes it sound like a win for Blake. May as well wait for the print edition lol. I thought the decision was fair to both sides, not a devastating blow to anyone.

Look it’s a loss for Blake. A big one. And if Liman is getting testy with anyone, this is definitely showing it is Blake’s side too. He is essentially saying enough is enough on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

Yes, thank you, that is exactly why I'm confused. This seems like a weird backend way to dismiss Lively's emotional distress claim. Is it because Freedman showed she wasn't negotiating discovery in good faith? But if so, why isn't the ruling clear on that point?

I feel like there is some legal nuance here I'm just not getting because at first I assumed this was good for Lively (because motion to compel was rejected) but then the outcome seems obviously bad for Lively and my brain is just struggling to compute it.

The motion to compel was rejected because of the representations made by Lively, not because it was wrong. She told the Court she would not be producing any documents related to emotional distress because she was dropping the claims. As long as the claims are dropped, there is no need for the documents. But the Court is, in essence, telling her no “backsies. Since she is not producing documents related to emotional distress now, she will be barred from producing any such evidence at trial.