The intense legal feud between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has escalated with an intriguing twist. Recently, a federal judge labeled the conflict as “a feud between PR firms,” highlighting its entanglement in media strategies. This striking observation came from Judge Lewis J. Liman during a Thursday morning session. Central to this litigation is the production of “It Ends With Us,” alongside claims of a subsequent online smear campaign.
Despite their prominent roles, Lively, Baldoni, and Ryan Reynolds were notably absent from the virtual hearing. The debate instead focused on confidentiality levels, with Lively and Reynolds’ legal team advocating for an Attorney’s Eyes Only (AEO) order. Their concerns about inevitable media leaks prompted this cautious stance.
Meryl Conant Governski, representing Lively and Reynolds, underscored the stakes, stating, “The parties in this case, on both sides, include people whose entire living is made off providing information to the press and content creators. There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders.”
Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, countered this perspective. He has consistently refuted allegations of intent to harm Lively, asserting his clients’ rights to self-defense. “No one has any intent of harming Ms. Lively in any way. My clients have a right to defend themselves, that is in no way abusing the victim,” he stated, according to reports from Deadline.
Judge Liman addressed the media storm enveloping both parties, noting accusations of information leaks. Lively’s PR firm, Vision PR, and Baldoni’s teams at TAG and RWA are entrenched in a high-stakes public relations battle. Freedman critiqued Lively and Reynolds for allegedly leveraging their celebrity status, dismissing claims that PR tactics qualify as trade secrets. Freedman remarked that representation details have already surfaced in public domains, stating, “It is in no way a trade secret.” He explicitly distinguished this case from his previous involvement with Quentin Tarantino and Miramax, emphasizing, “A very different matter.”
Amid these tensions, Judge Liman reminded the court of the inevitable public exposure of details as proceedings advance. He noted, “Much of this information will become public as the case goes forward—for example, in motions for summary judgment, and of course at trial. There is a public interest in how the courts are being used that the court has to respect,” as reported by Deadline.
Currently, the judge is reviewing submissions, with a decision expected soon. Both parties amended their complaints, dismissing settlement discussions as “premature.” The trial date is slated for March 29, 2026, keeping this high-profile legal drama in the public eye.
