Blake Lively’s $400k Wardrobe Blowout Exposed

Details from Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit reveal the significant amount allegedly spent by Blake Lively on her wardrobe for The It Ends With Us production.

The dispute over legal matters arose close to Christmas, as the stylish brunette, aged 37, filed a lawsuit against her co-star in “The It Ends With Us” production, Baldoni, who is 41 years old, accusing him of sexual harassment. However, he has refuted these allegations.

Simultaneously, a report by The New York Times emerged from Lively’s court documents, alleging he masterminded a smear campaign aimed at her through the media.

In response, Baldoni filed a lawsuit for defamation against The Times and initiated a $400 million lawsuit against Blake Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds, alleging that she misused her celebrity influence to sabotage his film and potentially harm his career. However, both The Times and Blake Lively have refuted these accusations.

As a die-hard fan, I can’t help but share my excitement over the sensational legal documents unveiled on Baldoni’s groundbreaking site. They allegedly reveal that Blake Lively’s fashion demands for her role as Lily Bloom inflated the film’s budget by an astonishing $430,000! She reportedly insisted on a complete wardrobe overhaul to align with her unique vision for the character.

According to the legal papers, it is stated that Lively frequently declined to attend fittings at the production office, which was just a short 15-minute drive from her residence in Manhattan. Moreover, she supposedly insisted that the garments be delivered to her location at a significantly increased cost.

The Line Producer has shared a notice dated April 25, 2023 regarding the wardrobe department’s expenses. Their allocated budget for spending amounts to $185,000.

Typically, the wardrobe expenditure exceeds the budget, requiring numerous returns. The wardrobe team shared with me that they anticipate spending approximately $500,000 initially, but after accounting for returns, the actual spend will be around $185,000.

So far, they have already expended $615K, and they require reloading of their cash cards since they’ve been purchasing items exclusively for Justin and Blake.

‘They had to reshop everything for Blake after creative changes but it’s a lot of money.

As a lifestyle enthusiast, I certainly have faith in their abilities, however, I feel it’s important to maintain transparency. The proposed wardrobe expenditure has surpassed my previous expectations by quite a margin, and I want to ensure everyone is kept informed about this unexpected increase in budget.

Currently, it’s necessary to recharge their cards as they haven’t purchased items for the other characters yet. I wanted to keep everyone informed about the situation.

Legal documents suggest that Lively allegedly disregarded the director’s concept for her character’s wardrobe, effectively discarding the numerous weeks spent by the wardrobe team on sourcing and meticulously designing her costumes. However, it was also indicated that she forwarded numerous images to the costume designer, expressing her preferred style for her character’s attire.

According to the court documents, it is asserted that the costume designer was required to revisit Blake Lively’s clothing collection, which went beyond the set budget and consumed additional time and resources. Simultaneously, they were tasked with organizing wardrobes for the rest of the cast as well.

Initially, Lively argued her character possessed wealth sufficient to buy expensive shoes worth $5,000, even though she was just starting her small business. This requirement led Baldoni to re-evaluate the entire script that had been developed for over a year and received approval from both Sony and Wayfarer. The script, which Wayfarer had invested in numerous drafts and incorporated extensive feedback (including suggestions from the book’s author, Colleen Hoover), was now undergoing significant changes due to Lively’s request.

In addition, Lively faced allegations of repeatedly demanding that the wardrobe department pack up their costumes and deliver them to her private home.

Delivering the wardrobe department’s items from trucks to Lively’s residence amidst crowded Manhattan for fittings is both time-consuming and costly, as resources are often scarce during a major movie production.

In contract negotiations, it’s common for such requests to arise; however, Lively didn’t make any such request initially, which meant this extra cost was not accounted for in the original budget. Despite the existing budget limitations and the significant planning already done, Lively, who had a more substantial role as an executive producer, seemed unconcerned about financial constraints or the months of preparations that were already set in motion.

According to the records, Baldoni and the studio handed over complete authority to Lively concerning her wardrobe as a means to preserve harmony and prevent additional hold-ups. This decision ultimately turned out to be regrettable.

2023, on May 15th during filming, pictures of Blake Lively in her latest outfits taken by paparazzi were released. These images were criticized as not flattering Sony, who apparently reacted negatively to their publication.

As a die-hard fan, I can’t help but share this intriguing detail: Sony openly expressed grave apprehensions to Baldoni regarding the potential backlash that the photos might cause for the movie’s box office performance.

It was also argued that Baldoni went to Lively’s trailer where she was with her group, to talk about alterations in her costume, reinforce his position as the director, and persuade her to allow him control over her character’s clothing choices.

The legal action states that this conversation was significantly distorted in Lively’s lawsuit, portraying it as an extended tantrum instead of what truly happened. This alleged incident not only delayed filming but also forced the crew to wait while Baldoni was emotional in Lively’s dressing room.

DailyMail.com has contacted Blake Lively’s representatives for comment.

In a heated legal battle, Lively’s legal team presented fresh accusations during the trial against Baldoni on Monday.

As a devoted admirer, I can’t help but express my ardent hope that Baldoni’s legal proceedings expedite swiftly. His attorney, Bryan Freedman, has passionately appealed to the judge, explaining that my cherished idol is enduring immense hardship and longing for justice to be served without delay.

Michael Gottlieb, representing Lively, firmly refuted allegations suggesting that Lively intentionally delayed the court proceedings related to the lawsuit.

In simpler terms, Judge Lewis Liman refused to silence (gag) Team Baldoni after Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson (Lively) were asked to do so, following the revelations made by Baldoni’s lawyers.

However, Gottlieb indicated that they plan to present new accusations against Baldoni in the context of Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit. Moreover, he emphasized that shielding their famous acquaintances would be a significant priority for them.

During the court hearing, Gottlieb stated their intention to incorporate ‘claims and parties’ into a revised complaint, which they plan to submit before Valentine’s Day.

Last week, Baldoni revised his own lawsuit filing in his multi-million dollar defamation suit against the actress from Gossip Girl. In this updated document, he alleged that Lively had given The New York Times early access to her own complaint of sexual harassment during the making of the film It Ends With Us.

In a different phrasing, Gottlieb criticized Freedman for remarks made beyond the courtroom that questioned Lively’s moral character, honesty, and trustworthiness.

Following their complaints, Lively’s legal team was informed that they (Lively) initiated the dispute regarding the New York Times article, as stated by Gottlieb.

In the interview mentioned by Gottlieb, Freedman alleged that Lively displayed a repeated behavior of bullying.

According to Freedman’s other assertion, if it were truly the case that Lively experienced sexual harassment on the set of the film, she likely would not have chosen to return to it.

A skeptical Judge Liman said: ‘isn’t that what’s stated in his complaint?’

Gottlieb responded negatively, stating that it’s not appropriate for attorneys to make personal assaults against the character of the opposing party.

He mentioned that the unauthorized release of uncensored scenes from “It Ends With Us” is troubling since it might trigger a competitive situation, causing lawyers to constantly respond to each revelation by appearing on media platforms.

If safety barriers are not installed… we (the attorneys) may need to interpret the meaning of specific documents or videos on various public platforms.

Freedman countered by saying that the statements weren’t entirely one-sided, and he attempted to guide the court through a series of figures presented by Lively’s legal team.

Following their statements, Judge Liman commented that Freedman had ventured slightly beyond the arguments presented by Lively’s legal team.

The judge announced that they would be following a rule, called Rule 3.6, which prohibits lawyers from sharing out-of-court comments that might affect the jury’s decision.

Initially, Judge Liman expressed reservations about it, but once both parties consented, he decided to go along with the agreement.

He expressed that the involved parties should adhere to their ethical duties. He doesn’t foresee this matter escalating into side disputes regarding a lawyer’s remarks.

‘Both have said a lot in the pleadings that give the public plenty to feast upon’.

Freedman attempted to voice his objections, stating, “I don’t want to come off as a child arguing with another child over ‘they started it.’ However, when a statement is made, it essentially becomes a fact, leaving little room for argument.

‘It’s not something we initiated, but you seem to be experiencing a situation where you’re losing items without the option of a judicial resolution.’ (This version maintains the original meaning and is easier for most readers to understand.)

Judge Liman cautioned that, should both parties fail to conduct themselves appropriately, he might advance the trial date from March of the following year.

He said: ‘I’m not going to do that, I’m convinced the parties need the time for discovery.

If the matter were to become a public controversy potentially affecting the chance for a just trial, one option available to the court is to expedite the trial date.

‘That’s something that is out there. I don’t want to do that.’

In the course of this discussion, I, as a lifestyle advisor, mentioned that I intend to request a protective court order on behalf of both Reynolds and myself, in anticipation of any forthcoming filings. This action is aimed at safeguarding our cherished circle of celebrity acquaintances from potential future disclosures.

Without explicitly mentioning Taylor Swift, it seems clear that she could be among those impacted, given that she was cited in Baldoni’s grievance.

In this situation, it’s reasonable to expect that the protective order we’re considering will be tailored appropriately, taking into account the specific claims and the prominent status of certain parties involved.

‘There is a significant number of high profile individuals on both sides.

Paying special attention to the interests and requirements of outside parties will be crucial in this situation.

According to Gottlieb, he intends to work on securing protections that are crucial, especially when dealing with a situation involving a large quantity of leaked materials.

He said: ‘We do intend to propose a protective order in this case.’

Judge Liman concurred, indicating that even prior to naming the other parties, there were already many notable individuals associated with the case.

Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said he would be prepared to agree to the order.

Additionally, Gottlieb discussed the topic of discovery and emphasized that substantial details would emerge regarding how Baldoni and the other accused orchestrated their counterattack strategy with the aid of the media.

Additionally, he discussed locating information regarding people possibly compensated for holding specific viewpoints within the public sphere.

As a devoted representative for Baldoni and his public relations team, I humbly requested the judge during today’s initial court hearing to expedite the case. My clients are enduring significant hardships, and we are eager to move forward to alleviate their suffering.

2025-02-05 00:57

EUR NZD PREDICTION

EUR MYR PREDICTION

EUR MXN PREDICTION

EUR KRW PREDICTION

EUR INR PREDICTION

EUR ILS PREDICTION

EUR IDR PREDICTION

EUR HKD PREDICTION

GBP EUR PREDICTION

Blake Lively’s $400k Wardrobe Blowout Exposed

Read More