In a significant legal development from Manhattan, a federal judge has restricted Blake Lively’s attempts to subpoena the legal team of her co-star Justin Baldoni. This recent ruling is part of an acrimonious dispute that has extended from the film set of "It Ends With Us" to the courtroom. The dispute gained traction when allegations of sexual harassment during the movie's production were levied by Lively against Baldoni, sparking widespread media coverage and subsequent lawsuits in both California and New York.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman’s decision effectively protects Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman from disclosing communications that Lively alleged were part of a smear campaign against her. The court, however, has left a slim opening for Lively’s team to explore limited discovery, contingent on the non-existence of such records as affirmed by Freedman’s firm.

Liman's 17-page opinion clarified that most of Lively's subpoena requests, which sought various communications between Freedman and his high-profile clients, were protected under attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The judge deemed Lively's speculative claims about Freedman’s possible incentives provided to influencers for public smearing as insufficient grounds to override these privileges.

In a twist of events, Baldoni’s legal team recently denied allegations that they leaked sensitive details from Lively's July 31 deposition to the press. They suggested that any such leaks could have originated from other sources, possibly even Lively’s own team, including her husband Ryan Reynolds, or staff present during the deposition.

Amid these legal skirmishes, Lively’s lawyers are forced to pivot their strategy. They now plan to subpoena third-party influencers to unearth any collusion, focusing on public statements, social media posts, and financial records to directly tie Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios to the alleged defamation.

This legal battle underscores the complex interplay of celebrity influence, legal strategy, and the robust protections afforded by attorney-client privilege. As the case progresses, with a trial set for March 2026, the entertainment industry and legal observers alike are keenly watching how these high-profile figures navigate the intricacies of law and public opinion. Meanwhile, Lively’s ongoing disputes in California and other aspects of the case continue to develop, promising more courtroom drama.