The legal dispute of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni for their statements of emotional anguish hit an obstacle on Tuesday when a federal judge refused to let Liver dismiss them in their preferred terms, instead of telling both parties to reach an agreement.
The recent dispute between “IT co -stars ends with us”, who have tangled up in a high profile battle for months, arose after Baldoni’s lawyers requested Liblely’s medical and mental health records to defend themselves against their statements that he intentionally and negligently inflicted the emotional anguish while they were on the set of the film.
Lively’s initial complaint accused Baldoni of sexual harassment, as well as reprisals, after she raised problems on her behavior on the set, accusations that Baldoni’s lawyers have denied. Since then, the two stars have been wrapped in a tense legal confrontation, and each accusing the other of having orchestrated a smear campaign.
Instead of providing medical and mental health records requested by the Baldoni team, Lively offered to launch their emotional distress claims, according to judicial documents presented on Monday. In response, Baldoni’s lawyers on Monday disputed their request to dismiss the claims “without prejudice”, which means that it could refilar them later. In a judicial presentation, Baldoni’s team argued that Lively should permanently dismiss his claims if he will not provide the medical records he requested.
In his own presentation of the Court hours later, Lively’s team described Baldoni’s motion as a “false and clear public relations trick” and asked the court to denied and attacked the motion completely.
On Tuesday morning, the American district judge Lewis Liman, from the Southern District of New York, denied Lively’s request, but wrote that he may present a formal motion requesting the dismissal without prejudice. Otherwise, Liman wrote, Lively and Baldoni teams must agree with each other if the dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
He also denied Baldoni’s motion to force Lively to provide his medical records, saying that the request is now debatable that Lively is withdrawing his claims of emotional anguish.
The border of liman animated pressures to dismiss their claims in any way, since he wrote that “if the claims are not dismissed, the court will prevent themselves from encouraging any evidence of emotional anguish.”
In a statement, Lively, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb’s lawyers wrote that Lively offered to rule out those statements “because they are no longer necessary, and will continue to pursue damage to emotional anguish through other statements in their demand, including sexual harassment and reprisals.”
“In addition, the Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy to present claims of retaliation has exposed them to expansive damage according to California’s law,” Lively’s lawyers wrote.
(Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind “It ends with us”, which Baldoni co -founded, is a defendant along with Baldoni).
“Here is exactly where both parties were before the Baldoni-Wayfarer parts rushed to present this completely useless motion to force, all looking for another moment of the press,” Lively’s lawyers wrote.
Baldoni’s lawyers did not immediately respond to comments requests on Tuesday.
Baldoni’s presentation on Monday argued that Lively was trying to avoid providing his medical records while preserving his statements of intentional and negligent influence of emotional anguish.
“Mrs. Lively cannot have it both ways. If Mrs. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED [intentional infliction of emotional distress] Claims, Wayfarer parts have the right to dismissal with damage to ensure that Baldoni’s lawyers said in the presentation. ” If Mrs. Lively is not willing to stipulate before the dismissal of her IED claims with prejudice, the parts of the fields will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and documents of presentation of the damages, then the parts of the marker of roads will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and presentation documents, the parts of the fields will continue to defend against them, and must produce against them, and must produce against them. Presentation documents of the prejudices, then the parts of the fields will continue to defend against them, and she must produce their medical information and presentation documents of the damages, then the parts of the fields will continue to defend against them, and she must produce their medical information and documents of presentation of the damages.
Baldoni’s lawyers specifically sought the names and addresses of their medical care providers, their treatment notes and their signed privacy forms that authorize the release of their records. They wrote in their presentation on Monday that because she claimed emotional injuries, Lively has placed her mental condition “in question” and, therefore, “renounced any medical-patient privilege.”
Lively’s lawyers responded to Baldoni’s motion in his response on Monday, arguing that Lively voluntarily accepted his statements of emotional anguish “in good faith” to rationalize the case. They added that Baldoni’s team had admitted that this means that his request for medical records would become debatable.
Lively’s presentation also said that Baldoni’s lawyers did not raise any objection to their reviews proposed to joint stipulation for dismissal during a telephone conference on Monday. He claimed that Baldoni’s team hastened to present a “clearly pre -written motion at the time the teleconference concluded.”
“Almost immediately afterwards, the sensationalist media began to report” exclusively “about the” shock “movement of Mrs. Lively, claiming that she” sensationally “has eliminated her claim, widely citing the motion,” said Lively’s presentation.
In addition to asking the court to deny and attack the motion, Lively’s lawyers had asked Liman on Monday to consider the sanctions for the “continuous abuse of the opposition of the file of this court.”
“The motion was presented for a single audience: the media,” said Lively’s presentation. “There is nothing for this court to force.”
Lively and Baldoni are expected to go to trial in March.
