MOVIE NEWS – If you’re confused about what’s happening between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, you’re not alone. The legal battle, sparked by behind-the-scenes drama on It Ends With Us, has spiraled into a complicated web of lawsuits and speculation. Now, things are getting even murkier, with Lively looking to drop two claims from her ongoing case.

According to Variety, Blake Lively is trying to withdraw both her intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Justin Baldoni. This move is considered unusual, since both parties’ medical records would typically be expected to surface during discovery. Lively’s motion came to light Monday when Baldoni’s attorneys filed their own request. They want the judge to either force Lively to continue with her claims—granting access to her medical records—or require her to withdraw them with prejudice, meaning she can’t refile them in the future. As explained by Cornell Law School: “Dismissal with prejudice prevents subsequent refiling and means they cannot bring the same claim again.”

The It Ends With Us Lawsuit Was Messy From the Start – and Now It’s Even Messier

The dispute now centers on whether Lively can withdraw the claims without prejudice, as Baldoni’s attorneys wrote:

“Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively’s counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims. However, Ms. Lively has refused the Wayfarer Parties’ reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice. She is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice. In other words, Ms. Lively wants to simultaneously: (a) refuse to disclose the information and documents needed to disprove that she suffered any emotional distress and/or that the Wayfarer Parties were the cause; and (b) maintain the right to re-file her IED Claims at an unknown time in this or some other court after the discovery window has closed.”

The filing continues:

“Ms. Lively cannot have it both ways. If Ms. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED Claims, the Wayfarer Parties are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to ensure they will not be re-filed. If Ms. Lively is unwilling to stipulate to the dismissal of her IED Claims with prejudice, then the Wayfarer Parties will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and documents as set forth herein. By alleging that she suffered physical and emotional injuries, Ms. Lively has placed her physical and mental condition at issue and, in turn, must produce relevant information and documents [including] psychiatric records. In other words, Ms. Lively has waived any doctor-patient privilege.”

Lively’s attorneys—Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb—called Baldoni’s legal filing a “press stunt,” not the legitimate “streamlining and focusing” of her case as they claim:
“The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms. Lively’s original claims no longer necessary. Ms. Lively continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims.”

Lively’s lawyers also submitted a counter-filing asking the court to sanction Baldoni’s attorneys for allegedly abusing the docket and requesting that the motion to compel Lively be denied and struck from the record:

“It is based on two brazenly false assertions. First, they claim that Ms. Lively has ‘refused’ to disclose medical and mental health information, but as counsel for the Wayfarer Parties concede, that information is relevant only to Ms. Lively’s stand-alone tort-based emotional distress claims that she indicated she was withdrawing. To suggest that Ms. Lively has ‘refused’ to produce anything (in either her written discovery responses, in the parties’ conference, or anytime thereafter) in connection with these claims, is intentionally misleading to the Court and their intended audience for this false record: the public. Second, they claim that Ms. Lively has ‘refused’ to properly stipulate to dismissal. But, that would suggest there was any discussion or mutually known dispute as to the stipulation. As noted, there was none.”

Baldoni’s lawyers declined to comment on Lively’s filing. Still, with so much of this legal fight playing out in the public eye, things could change at any moment. The only certainty is more confusion ahead—no matter the verdict.

Source: Variety