The legal quarrel of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni on his claims of emotional distress struck a roadblock on Tuesday when a federal judge refused to let Lively reject them on his favorite conditions, saying rather to the two parties to reach an agreement.
The recent disc between the “IT co-stars ends with us”, which have been entangled in a high -level legal battle For months, he appeared after Baldoni lawyers asked for medical and mental health files of Lively to defend himself against his assertions that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress while they were on the set of the film.
Initial complaint of Lively In December, the Baldoni accused of sexual harassment, as well as reprisals, after having raised questions concerning his behavior on the set – allegations of Baldoni lawyers denied. Since then, the two stars have been involved in a tense legal confrontation, each accusing the other of having orchestrated a defamation campaign.
Rather than providing medical and mental health records requested by the Baldoni team, Lively proposed to drop her allegations of emotional distress, according to court documents deposited on Monday. In response, Baldoni lawyers challenged its request to reject “without prejudice” complaints on Monday, which means that it could refresh them later. In a legal file, the Baldoni team argued that Lively should constantly reject its complaints if it would not provide the medical files it requested.
In his own court, hours later, the Lively team called Baldoni’s request for “false and manifestly inappropriate public relations” and asked the court to reject and hit the request entirely.
Tuesday morning, the American district judge Lewis Liman of the South District of New York rejected the request of Lively, but wrote that she could file an official request requesting a dismissal without prejudice. Otherwise, Liman wrote, the Lively and Baldoni teams must agree with each other if the dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
He also rejected Baldoni’s request to force Lively to provide his medical records, saying that the request was made Oot now that Lively takes off his allegations of emotional distress.
The ruling pressures of Liman live to reject his complaints in both directions, because he wrote that “if the complaints are not rejected, the court will prevent Lively from proposing all proof of emotional distress”.
In a press release, the lawyers of Lively Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb wrote that Lively proposed to reject these complaints “because they are no longer necessary, and it will continue to undergo emotional damages through other complaints in its trial, including sexual harassment and reprisals.”
“In addition, the Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of reproduction of reprisals has exposed them to numerous damages under Californian law,” said lawyers for Lively.
(Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind “IT ends with us”, which Baldoni co-founded, is a defendant with Baldoni.)
“This is exactly there that the two parties were before the Baldoni-gays parties rushed to deposit this movement completely useless to force, all looking for another moment of the press,” wrote the lawyers of Lively.
Baldoni lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Tuesday.
The Baldoni file on Monday argued that Lively tried to avoid providing her medical files while preserving her intentional and negligent infliction claims of emotional distress.
“Ms. Lively cannot have both ways. If Ms. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED (intentional infliction of emotional distress), the Wayfarer parties are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to ensure that they will not be re-referred,” said Baldoni lawyers in the file. “If Mrs. Lively does not want to stipulate the dismissal of her IED claims with prejudice, the Wayfarer parties will continue to defend themselves against them, and she must produce her medical information and her documents set out here.”
Baldoni lawyers specifically sought the names and addresses of his health care providers, their processing notes and their signed confidentiality forms authorizing the publication of his files. They wrote in their file on Monday only because she asked for emotional injuries, Lively placed her mental state “in question” and therefore “gave up any doctor-patient privilege”.
Lively lawyers have the Baldoni request in their response on Monday, arguing that Lively voluntarily agreed to withdraw her emotional distress claims “in good faith” to rationalize the case. They added that the Baldoni team had conceded that this means that their request for medical records would become aimlessly.
The Lively file also said that Baldoni lawyers had not raised any objection to its proposed revisions to the joint dismissal stipulation during a conference call on Monday. He allegedly alleged that the Baldoni team was rushing rather to deposit a “clearly pre-written motion in the minute when the teleconference ended”.
“Almost immediately thereafter, the tabloid media began to report” exclusively “on the move of Ms. Lively, saying that she had” sensitively “abandoned her claim of the IIED, largely quoting the motion,” said the Lively file.
In addition to asking the court to deny and hit the request, the lawyers of Lively had asked Liman on Monday to consider sanctions for “the continuous mistreatment of the opposition of the file of this court”.
“The motion was tabled for a single audience: the media,” said the Lively file. “There is nothing to compel for this court.”
Animated and Baldoni should be tried in March.
