Blake Lively has revealed why she chose to drop her emotional distress claim against Justin Baldoni.
The It Ends With Us actress lashed out at Baldoni, 41, in new court filings exclusively obtained by the Daily Mail, after his team demanded she provide medical records to back up her claim.
Lively, 37, argues that she voluntarily agreed to withdraw the emotional distress claims on Friday, in ‘good faith to streamline the dispute’.
She accused Baldoni’s team of creating a, ‘false and plainly improper public relations stunt’ and claimed they are ‘desperately’ trying to ‘make a show’ out of her decision.
She also branded their attempt to get her to hand over her medical records as ‘frivolous’.
Her lawyers claim Baldoni’s team created an ‘unnecessary escalation’, adding that they ‘disingenuously’ claimed Lively was refusing to participate in discovery, ‘by not immediately responding in the middle of the night’.
Blake Lively, 37, hit back at Justin Baldoni’s legal motion to demand she hands over her medical records that prove he caused her emotional distress as a ”false and plainly improper public relations stunt’
Lively has withdrawn her claim of emotional distress against Justin Baldoni following the demand for medical records, but said it was done to ‘streamline the process’
According to new court filings, both sides participated in a virtual meeting on Monday, but did not discuss Baldoni’s latest motion.
Lively’s team say at no point during that Monday conference were any objections or concerns raised regarding the embattled actress’s revisions to dismissing her emotional distress claim.
‘Instead, they rushed to this Court to file this clearly pre-written Motion the minute that the teleconference concluded,’ court documents state.
‘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.’
Her team argue that because Lively has already agreed to withdraw a second claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, they have no right to demand records from her.
Her team are now demanding that Baldoni’s motion be dismissed, branding it ‘abusive’ and ‘improper’.
It comes after the Daily Mail revealed that his team are insisting the mom-of-four is trying ‘to have it both ways’ and that she complies with their ‘reasonable’ request to see her medical documents.
The duo have been locked in a tense legal battle over their film It Ends With Us, which is based on the 2016 bestseller by Colleen Hoover and was released in August and was a box office hit
‘The Motion was filed for a single audience: the media. There is nothing for this Court to compel,’ Michael Gottlieb wrote to the court.
Contrary to Lively’s filing, an insider told the Daily Mail 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.
Baldoni now has two fewer claims to defend himself from, but could face the same accusations again, after the actress demanded to drop the claims without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled.
Lively’s team told the Daily Mail, ‘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.
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
‘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.
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.
Baldoni, 41, is also pursuing a $400M defamation countersuit of his own that accusing glamorous blonde of damaging his reputation and career
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, the Daily Mail 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.
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.
Taylor Swift, 36, was dragged into the saga in January due to Baldoni’s claim 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
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.’
