Movies

The ‘truth’ behind Blake Lively’s shock move to drop ’emotional distress’ claim against Justin Baldoni…as she worries legal battle is turning into ‘a show’

BBG News

Blake Lively explains the reason behind withdrawing her emotional distress claim against Justin Baldoni following a dispute over providing medical evidence in their recent court case.

In newly submitted legal documents (exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com), the actress from “The It Ends With Us” has criticized the 41-year-old, alleging that his management is orchestrating an “untrue and clearly inappropriate public relations tactic.

37-year-old Lively chose to drop her allegations of causing emotional distress last Friday, acting in good faith to simplify the ongoing disagreement.

Her legal representatives are charging Baldoni’s group with making an excessive effort to sensationalize her choice, labeling their attempts to obtain her medical documents as unfounded.

Over the weekend, they labeled their strategies as an ‘unwarranted intensification,’ stating furthermore that they ‘insincerely’ asserted Lively was withholding participation in the discovery process by failing to respond promptly during the night hours.

Based on the recent court documents, it appears that both parties took part in a virtual gathering on Monday, yet they did not address or discuss Baldoni’s most recent motion during this meeting.

According to Lively’s team, there was never a moment during the meeting where any objections or worries were brought up about the controversial actresses modifying her lawsuit that aimed to discard her emotional distress claim.

According to court records, rather than waiting, they swiftly submitted this evidently prepared Motion to the Court immediately following the conclusion of the teleconference.

The statement is built on two blatant misrepresentations. Initially, they argue that Miss Lively has withheld medical and psychological details; however, her legal representation for the Wayfarer Parties acknowledges that this information is significant only to Miss Lively’s individual claims of emotional distress related to torts, which she has expressed she will no longer pursue.

It’s inappropriate and misleading to imply that Ms. Lively has deliberately declined to provide any evidence (whether in her written responses, during the parties’ conference, or afterward) related to these claims, as such a statement would be knowingly creating a deceptive court record for the Court and its broader audience – the public.

To put it another way, it’s being suggested that Miss Lively declined to agree on a dismissal in the usual manner. However, this implies that there was some prior conversation or mutual understanding about the dismissal terms. This is not accurate, as no such discussion took place.

In simpler terms, since Lively has consented to dropping a second allegation of emotional distress caused by negligence, her team contends that they hold no authority to compel her for the requested records.

Now, her team is insisting that Baldoni’s proposal should be thrown out, labeling it as both ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unwarranted’.

Following DailyMail.com’s disclosure, it appears that his team believes the mother of four is attempting to maintain two contrasting positions. They also claim that they’ve made a reasonable demand for her to share her medical records with them.

Michael Gottlieb wrote in his filing that the hearing was intended solely for the media, with no need for this court to intervene or take action.

According to a confidential source, Lively’s legal team was attempting to discreetly remove the emotional distress aspects from the lawsuit in order to avoid having their documents examined closely.

Vitality asserted that the emotional turmoil supposedly caused by Baldoni significantly affected her overall health – mind, body, and spirit. If accurate, such impacts might be reflected in her medical history.

Now, Baldoni finds himself with two fewer allegations to counter, yet there’s a possibility that he might encounter similar accusations once more, as the actress requested to dismiss the charges without prejudice – which means they can potentially be re-filed.

However, things took an unexpected turn for Baldoni when the actress requested that the allegations be dismissed without any legal consequences, which means they could potentially be brought up again later.

Lively’s team has answered DailyMail.com’s request for comment, stating that this is a standard part of the legal process being exploited for sensationalism. They are simply organizing their case for trial, while the other party is merely trying to generate another round of tabloid headlines.

Ms. Lively is still asserting emotional distress, among several other accusations in her lawsuit, which include sexual harassment, retaliation, and substantial extra compensatory damages for all her allegations.

Despite the actress withdrawing her emotional distress allegations, Baldoni must nevertheless prepare for his defense regarding her remaining charges such as sexual harassment and the coordination of a defamatory campaign against her.

Apart from being 41 years old, he’s additionally filing a lawsuit worth $400 million in response, alleging defamation and asserting that the well-known blonde has harmed both his reputation and career by making false statements about him.

The withdrawal represents a new turn of events in a series of legal maneuvers that have emerged recently, with the two parties engaging in a legal fight concerning his effort to summon Taylor Swift’s former best friend as a witness.

In January, Swift, aged 36, found herself involved in a well-known controversy, stemming from Baldoni’s claim that Lively had referred to her husband Ryan Reynolds, who is 48, as “my dragons” and hinted at unleashing them if he didn’t comply with her alterations to a scene.

The subpoena, accompanied by a legal document, claims that Lively allegedly warned Swift that she would disclose a decade’s worth of text messages if Swift didn’t make a public statement supporting her.

As a seasoned lifestyle guide, I promptly refuted the allegations that were brought against us, swiftly countering them with solid evidence. Moreover, I respectfully requested Judge Lewis Liman to retract the subpoena – a demand he graciously honored.

As a devoted follower, I find myself in a situation where subpoenas issued against me, Lively and Reynolds, have been upheld. The actress and I are now required to undergo depositions, although there seems to be some contention regarding this matter due to her reluctance to face questioning from Baldoni’s legal team.

Another legal disadvantage for the 37-year-old actress arises from the dismissal of her emotional turmoil cases. For several months, she’s faced a torrent of unfavorable news, and her relationship with Swift has publicly worsened as well.

Additionally, several of her accusations are starting to appear questionable, such as the assertion that Baldoni supposedly leaned in to nuzzle her neck and complimented her on her scent during a dance sequence.

As a die-hard fan, I couldn’t help but delve deeper into the recent claims by Blake Lively about the filming of her movie without microphones. However, DailyMail.com has managed to get their hands on the raw footage that reveals the sound was indeed on! Shockingly, it appears the conversation wasn’t about what we were led to believe – instead, it revolved around the tantalizing scent of Blake’s fake tan!

Additionally, she has been subjected to criticism regarding certain legal strategies employed by her team. One such instance involved a law suit disguised as a ‘shell’ lawsuit filed in October, which was later utilized to summon publicist Stephanie Jones for a phone previously owned by Jennifer Abel, her former employee.

In a later development, the texts exchanged between Abel and crisis management expert Melissa Nathan on their phones became the foundation for Lively’s allegations of a smear campaign. However, Baldoni’s group countered by asserting that these messages were manipulated by selectively editing them. To refute this claim, they published the entirety of the conversations in question.

Jones argued in legal documents that she handed over the texts not as a favor but rather following receipt of a subpoena last October.

However, this action resulted in the unveiling of a spurious lawsuit, which was dismissed – a previously initiated suit by Lively’s firm, Vanzan, against unidentified parties numbered 1-10.

Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, reacted angrily to the disclosure, labeling the Vanzan lawsuit as a “fraudulent claim.

In a statement, Freedman clarified that neither Ms. Lively nor Mr. Reynolds were involved in the mentioned case, as their company Vanzan had no connection to it.

The false legal action aimed to secure subpoena authority without supervision or evaluation, thereby preventing my clients from challenging the legitimacy, purpose, and extent of the subpoena.

As an avid admirer, I can’t help but express my astonishment. It’s utterly baffling! Court officers are charged with honesty and integrity. Their duty of candor to the court requires them to be truthful at all times, and they must refrain from filing lawsuits that lack factual or legal foundation. This isn’t just ordinary behavior; it’s a clear deviation from the principles we expect from our justice system.

‘This was done in bad faith and constitutes a flagrant abuse of process.’

Read More

2025-06-03 16:20

Previous post John Wayne’s Dirty Harry Knockoff: How Clint Eastwood’s Co-Star Played A Very Different Role
Next post Ripple CEO Denies Circle Acquisition Rumors: The Crypto Drama Continues! 🚀🤔