Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni: PR War or Legal Showdown? Judge Weighs In!

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are requesting heightened privacy protections as part of their ongoing legal battle with It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni. During a virtual court hearing on March 6, the couple’s attorney, Meryl Governski, filed a motion for an additional protective order aimed at keeping certain sensitive information private, particularly text messages and communications with high-profile individuals unrelated to the case.

Governski argued that revealing these “marginal conversations” could cause “irreparable harm,” especially if leaked to the public or press. “There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders,” she said. The requested order would cover communications involving personal health, children, private residences, and other intimate or irrelevant conversations with third parties.

Governski’s motion also included a request for a designation of “attorney’s eyes only” for some discovery materials. This would restrict access to the information solely to the attorneys of the involved parties, rather than to the parties themselves. This measure would safeguard highly sensitive personal matters, as well as proprietary information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.

The request extends to publicist Leslie Sloane, who is named in Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit alongside Lively and Reynolds. Sloane’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, echoed Governski’s points, highlighting that disclosing such confidential information could lead to competitive disadvantages for her client’s PR firm, Vision PR. McCawley specifically mentioned that details about trade secrets, marketing plans, and non-public client projects could be exposed, which she argues would significantly harm Sloane’s business.

On the opposing side, Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman argued that the additional protective order was “overboard and unnecessary.” Freedman emphasized that his team had no intention of disclosing confidential information and took issue with the request, suggesting it stemmed from the high-profile nature of the case. “There is celebrity, because there are powerful people in the industry—somehow there is a different law that applies to them,” he claimed.

Freedman also addressed McCawley’s concerns, asserting that there were no trade secrets at risk, as PR firms typically advertise their clients. He added that his team had been diligent in avoiding the mention of third parties by name. “We shouldn’t be put in a position where we are the ones that have to run to court every single time just given attorney’s eyes only protection,” Freedman concluded, asserting his client’s right to defend themselves in the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman did not make an immediate ruling but stated that he would carefully review both sides’ arguments and deliver a decision at a later date. As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this privacy motion will likely play a significant role in the course of the case.