Blake Lively has accused Justin Baldoni and his legal team of trying to 'manufacture a strategic advantage' in the upcoming It Ends With Us trial in New York. Her lawyers told a federal judge on 7 April that Baldoni and several co-defendants had still not confirmed whether they would appear in person or testify via deposition when proceedings begin on 18 May.
The dispute stems from a 2024 California complaint, followed by a New York federal lawsuit, in which Lively alleged that Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios chief executive Jamey Heath engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour during work on It Ends With Us and then took part in what she called a retaliatory 'social manipulation' smear campaign. Many of the allegations have already been narrowed by the court. On 2 April, US District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of Lively's 13 claims, including sexual harassment and defamation, allowing only three to proceed to trial: breach of contract, retaliation and aiding and abetting in retaliation.
Judge Liman ruled that the sexual harassment claims failed on jurisdictional grounds, noting that Lively had sued under California law but the alleged misconduct did not occur in California. The trial now looming in Manhattan is therefore a more narrowly defined contract and retaliation case, rather than a broader test of the original harassment allegations.
Lively's remaining claims are aimed not just at Baldoni, her co-star and director on the film adaptation, but also at several figures around him. The defendants include Heath, Wayfarer Studios cofounder Steve Sarowitz, crisis public relations specialist Melissa Nathan and publicist Jennifer Abel. Lively's filings allege that they took part in conduct that damaged her professionally after she pushed back on what she described as inappropriate behaviour, though all of that remains contested.
Blake Lively Trial Hinges on Who Will Appear in Court
In the latest flashpoint, set out in Lively's 7 April letter to Judge Liman, her lawyers said they are up against a hard deadline. Under the court's rules, they must file a joint pre-trial order by 10 April. That document has to include a full list of trial witnesses and indicate whether each will testify in person or through recorded deposition.
According to the letter, obtained by USA Today, Lively's team said they have repeatedly tried 'in good faith' to pin down that basic information from Baldoni's side. They argued that Baldoni and his co-defendants have refused to provide clarity either 'in the near future' or even in their final witness lists, leaving Lively's lawyers guessing about who will be physically present in the courtroom.
The correspondence includes a 6 April email from Baldoni's lawyer, Ellyn Garofalo, in which the defence cited what she called the court's 'limited subpoena power.' According to the email, Baldoni's team is reserving the right to use deposition testimony for any witnesses unwilling or unable to attend in person, particularly those living outside the court's jurisdiction.
Lively's team, however, described the lack of a clear answer as more than a scheduling issue, saying it is a tactic. They are asking the judge to order Baldoni and his co-defendants to spell out their plans by 8 April. They also seek a limited one-week extension to file their own deposition designations once those disclosures are made, arguing they cannot sensibly finalise trial strategy without knowing whether Baldoni and other central figures will face cross-examination in person.
Lively Claims Justin Baldoni's Uncertainty Is 'Strategic'
The language in Lively's latest filing is pointed. Her lawyers told the court that the 'presence or absence' of Baldoni, Heath and the other defendants will 'substantially affect the presentation of evidence,' including the order of witnesses, how each side prepares for testimony and what pre-trial rulings the judge may need to make.
They argued that Lively is 'entitled to know' if Baldoni intends to attend his own trial in person and said the lack of 'straightforward information' from the defence 'appears designed to manufacture a strategic advantage.' In their view, being left in the dark about something as basic as who will be sitting at the defence table makes it harder for her to complete the detailed preparation a civil jury trial requires.
Baldoni's legal team, at least in the exchanges quoted, does not accept that framing. By emphasising the court's limited power to compel out-of-state witnesses to travel, Garofalo signals a logistical explanation, suggesting the defence wants to keep its options open until it knows exactly who can or will appear.
The dispute also highlights how much of the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni fight has shifted from the substance of the original harassment claims to the mechanics of a high-profile trial. With most of Lively's more explosive accusations already dismissed on legal grounds, the case now turns on issues of process, timing and what evidence each side will be able to present, and in what form.
For now, there is no public sign that the judge has ruled on Lively's request, and Baldoni's team has not set out a detailed response in these filings. Until the court intervenes or the parties reach agreement, even the basic question of who will take the stand remains in dispute, underlining how sharply this trial has narrowed from explosive allegations to a fight over process, strategy and what the jury will ultimately hear.
