Anyone else feeling deeply confused by what’s going on with theBlake LivelyandJustin Baldonilawsuit? The legal saga — which wasborne out of dramaon the set of the duo’s film,It Ends With Us,but has only snowballed into many lawsuits and a feast for those who live inthe courthouse of public opinion— has become increasingly complicated and involved since it was filed last year. And it looks like things are only going to get more confusing and litigious, as Lively moves to withdraw two of the claims in her lawsuit.
According to a new report fromVariety, Blake Lively is attempting towithdraw her claimsagainst Justin Baldoni of intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as the negligent infliction of emotional distress. This is, according to the outlet, an unusual move given the fact that lawyers and plaintiffs/defendants should know that this sort of medical information would be disclosed during discovery.
Blake Lively Opens Up About “Intense” Year in First TV Interview Since Justin Baldoni Lawsuit
Blake Lively says that the last year of her life “has been full of the highest highs and the lowest lows.”
The news of Lively’s motion was revealed on Monday evening, when a motion was filed by Baldoni’s attorneys in response. The actor/director’s lawyers want to either compel the actress togo forth with the lawsuitas initially submitted, therefore granting access to Lively’s medical information (therapist and doctor notes, etc.), or withdraw the claims with prejudice (rather than without, which is what the actress is attempting to do). According toCornell Law School, “dismissal with prejudice prevents subsequent refiling” and that “they cannot bring the same claim again.”
The ‘It Ends With Us’ Lawsuit Started Messy And Has Only Gotten Messier
It’s the with or without prejudice aspect of this withdraw attempt that seems to be the sticking point here, as Baldoni’s lawyer’s filing on Monday laid out:
“Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively’s counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims. However, Ms. Lively has refused the Wayfarer Parties' reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice. She is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice. In other words, Ms. Lively wants to simultaneously: (a) refuse to disclose the information and documents needed to disprove that she suffered any emotional distress and/or that the Wayfarer Parties were the cause; and (b) maintain the right to re-file her IED Claims at an unknown time in this or some other court after the discovery window has closed.”
The filing continued:
“Ms. Lively cannot have it both ways. If Ms. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED Claims, the Wayfarer Parties are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to ensure they will not be re-filed. If Ms. Lively is unwilling to stipulate to the dismissal of her IED Claims with prejudice, then the Wayfarer Parties will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and documents as set forth herein. By alleging that she suffered physical and emotional injuries, Ms. Lively has placed her physical and mental condition at issue and, in turn, must produce relevant information and documents [including] psychiatric records. In other words, Ms. Lively has waived any doctor-patient privilege.”
Lively’s lawyers — Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb — described the filing as a “press stunt” rather than the “streamlining and focusing” of her case that they claim it to be:
“The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms. Lively’s original claims no longer necessary. 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.”
In response, Lively’s lawyers have submitted a filing of their own, asking the court to sanction Baldoni’s attorneys for abusing the docket, requesting that the motion to compel Lively be denied and struck from the record:
“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.”
Baldoni’s lawyers declined comment on Lively’s filing and subsequent comments. Of course, all of that could change in an instant, given that these two haveplayed so much of this lawsuit out in public. However this shakes out? Only time will tell. But something tells us we’ll probably be confused and unsure regardless of who wins.
