Blake Lively’s Legal Gambit Backfires: Judge Delivers Crushing Blow in Emotional Distress Case

In a dramatic turn of events, Blake Lively’s strategic move to withdraw her emotional distress claims against Justin Baldoni has been thwarted by a federal judge, intensifying the legal battle between the two stars.

Blake Lively, renowned for her role in “Gossip Girl,” faced a significant setback in her ongoing legal dispute with “It Ends With Us” co-star and director Justin Baldoni. Lively had sought to withdraw her claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress without prejudice, a legal maneuver that would allow her to reintroduce them later. However, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman denied this request, ruling that such a withdrawal could not be made without the agreement of both parties .

The judge’s decision means that Lively cannot present any evidence related to emotional distress in the current proceedings unless the claims are formally dismissed. This development came after Baldoni’s legal team requested access to Lively’s medical and mental health records to substantiate her emotional distress allegations. Lively’s attorneys argued that this request was an invasive “press stunt” and chose to drop the claims to avoid disclosing sensitive personal information .

Despite this setback, Lively’s legal team emphasized that she continues to pursue other claims in her lawsuit, including allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. They assert that the dismissal of the emotional distress claims does not weaken her overall case, as she still seeks damages through the remaining allegations .

The legal feud between Lively and Baldoni began in December 2024 when Lively filed a complaint accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and orchestrating a smear campaign against her. Baldoni has denied these allegations and countersued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist for defamation and civil extortion. The trial is scheduled to commence in March 2026

As the courtroom drama unfolds, both parties remain entrenched in their positions, with the recent ruling adding another layer of complexity to an already contentious legal battle