Blake Lively has made a surprising decision to withdraw her accusation that Justin Baldoni deliberately caused her emotional distress, following his legal team’s request for medical evidence.
In a recent legal document, obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com, it was revealed that the troubled actress has also retracted another allegation of careless infliction of emotional distress and is trying to prevent the need to disclose her medical records to Baldoni’s legal team.
However, Baldoni was not completely in the clear as Lively opted to dismiss the claims without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of re-filing them at a later time.
The attempt has prompted a new round of legal letters, with Baldoni’s team angrily insisting the mom-of-four is trying ‘to have it both ways’ and demanding that she comply with their ‘reasonable’ request to see her medical documents.
An insider told DailyMail.com that Lively’s lawyers had hoped to quietly ditch the emotional distress elements of the lawsuit to dodge having her records scrutinized.
Lively had claimed that the emotional distress allegedly inflicted on her by Baldoni had ‘severely impacted her physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing’ – all of which could show up in her health records if true.
Lively’s team has responded to DailyMail.com’s request for comment: ‘Once again this is a routine part of the litigation process that is being used as a press stunt. We are doing what trial lawyers do: preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it; they are doing what they do: desperately seeking another tired round of tabloid coverage.
‘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.’
Although the actress has now dropped the emotional distress claims, Baldoni will still have to defend himself over her other claims which include sexual harassment and the orchestration of a smear campaign against her.Â
The 41-year-old is also pursuing a $400m countersuit of his own that also claims defamation and accuses the glamorous blonde of damaging his reputation and career.
The withdrawal is the latest twist in a tsunami of legal developments that in recent weeks has seen the warring pair battle it out over his attempt to subpoena her one-time bestie, Taylor Swift.
Swift, 36, was dragged into the saga in January due to a now-notorious claim by Baldoni that Lively referred to the megastar and husband Ryan Reynolds, 48, as ‘my dragons’ and threatened to unleash them upon him if he refused to go along with her changes to a scene.
According to a legal letter sent along with the subpoena, Lively allegedly threatened to leak a decade’s worth of text messages if Swift failed to issue a statement in support of her.
Lively’s team quickly hit back and denied the claims, and also demanded the subpoena be withdrawn – a request later granted by Judge Lewis Liman.
Subpoenas against Lively and Reynolds were upheld and the actress is facing a deposition, although that too is the subject of wrangling due to her reluctance to be grilled by Baldoni’s lawyers.
The dropping of the emotional distress claims is yet another legal setback for the 37-year-old actress, who has been the subject of a deluge of negative headlines for months and has seen her friendship with Swift publicly deteriorate.
On top of that, some of her allegations have begun to look increasingly dubious including the claim that Baldoni had nuzzled her neck and told her ‘you smell so good’ during a dancing scene.
Although Lively claimed it had been filmed with microphones off, DailyMail.com obtained raw footage that showed the sound was on and that the conversation had instead been about the scent of Lively’s fake tan.
She has also faced scrutiny over some of her team’s legal maneuvers, among them a shell lawsuit filed in October that was used as the basis to subpoena publicist Stephanie Jones for a phone used by her former employee Jennifer Abel.
The messages on the phone between Abel and crisis PR Melissa Nathan were later used as the basis for Lively’s claims of a smear campaign, although Baldoni’s team hit back saying the texts were selectively edited and released the conversations in full.
Jones had hotly denied handing over the texts as a favor, arguing in court papers that she turned the device over only after receiving a subpoena last October.
But that led to the existence of a ‘sham’ lawsuit being revealed – a now-dropped case filed by Lively’s company Vanzan against anonymous Does 1-10.
The revelation prompted a furious response from Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman who described the Vanzan suit as a ‘sham’.
‘Ms. Lively’s and Mr. Reynolds’ company Vanzan had nothing to do with this case and they knew it,’ Freedman said in a statement.
‘This sham lawsuit was designed to obtain subpoena power without oversight or scrutiny, and in doing so denied my clients the ability to contest the propriety, nature, and scope of the subpoena.
‘There is nothing normal about this. Officers of the court have a duty of candor to the court and an obligation not to file fictitious lawsuits that have no basis in fact or law.
‘This was done in bad faith and constitutes a flagrant abuse of process.’
DailyMail.com has also revealed that Baldoni has added a powerful female litigator to his legal counsel who could make a ‘meaningful difference’ to his acrimonious battle with Lively, according to insiders – and she has an unlikely connection to Taylor Swift.
Ellyn S. Garofalo, who previously worked with Venable LLP – the law firm used by Swift – has joined Baldoni’s side as part of the Wayfarer legal team in a move that has prompted fans to question the singer’s involvement in the ongoing war.
The pop superstar, 35, was dragged into the feud between Lively, 37, and her It Ends With Us costar and director Baldoni, 41, in early May when she was officially subpoenaed as a witness.Â
A legal letter filed last month by his lawyers alleged that Lively had attempted to ‘coerce’ Swift to issue a public statement in support of her and urged her to delete text messages between them.Â
Lively’s lawyers later filed a motion asking the court to strike the accusations from its docket as ‘baseless, unnecessary, improper and abusive,’ and Lively’s motion to dismiss Baldoni’s letter was granted.
But Baldoni’s team withdrew the subpoena in late May after Venable LLP objected that it amounted to an ‘unwarranted fishing expedition.’ It was branded ‘tabloid clickbait’ by Swift’s representative.
Garofalo, who worked at Venable LLP from 2018 until 2021, reportedly joined Baldoni’s team ‘after Venable was able to get the Taylor subpoena tossed.’
‘For Ellyn to join the counsel is huge,’ an insider exclusively told the Daily Mail.
According to her biography, Garofalo is a seasoned trial attorney with over three decades of courtroom experience.
Her focus is on ‘civil, criminal, and regulatory matters, including SEC enforcement actions,’ and she has previously worked on high-profile cases involving Anna Nicole Smith and Alyssa Milano.
‘Baldoni’s team is thrilled because of her track record in the courtroom,’ the insider said of the Pepperdine Law School grad.
‘She not only brings exceptional legal expertise but also fulfils their desire to include a prominent female litigator.’
News of her involvement comes days after an unnamed insider in Swift’s inner circle allegedly provided documented evidence to Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman detailing how Lively’s attorneys had ‘threatened to leak’ the actress’s private exchanges with Swift, in a failed attempt to coerce the singer into publicly siding with her against Baldoni. The Daily Mail exclusively revealed that the ‘leaker’ was none other than Scott Swift – the singer’s 73-year-old father.
‘Garofalo was compelled to join the case after reviewing its circumstances, feeling strongly that an injustice was unfolding and that her participation could make a meaningful difference,’ our source said.
The legal dispute began when Lively sued Baldoni for sexual harassment. Baldoni has countersued for defamation. Both parties have denied all the allegations against them. Their trial is scheduled for March 2026.
