Given the unrivalled public interest in the ongoing legal drama between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, the judge’s latest ruling is undoubtedly a win for Team Lively.

In December, Lively filed a lawsuit against her It Ends With Us co-star accusing him of sexual harassment on set and of launching a smear campaign against her in the press run of the film. Baldoni immediately filed a counter lawsuit accusing Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds of defamation, invasion of privacy and extortion. He is also suing The New York Times, which published Lively’s account, for up to $250 (£192.8m) for libel, claiming it relied on his co-star’s ‘unverified and self-serving narrative’.

It has become near impossible to avoid details about the case, which gets messier each week, but there is no doubt endless social media speculation has shaped public opinion at various junctions. This is something both parties have been affected by.

At the end of January, Baldoni kept his promise to publish his lawsuit on a website that is publicly available to read, in the hope of clearing his name. Lively then submitted a request to the judge that certain discoveries made in the case be for their ‘attorneys’ eyes only’ to protect against any leaks of sensitive information.

‘There is an insatiable appetite for any information about this case, no matter how benign it is,’ Lively’s attorney, Meryl Governski, told the New York Judge Lewis Liman this month. ‘The defendants have bragged in text messages about being able to publish information without fingerprints.’

Governski added that all information related to medical information, including mental health, should be kept between lawyers and that ‘personal and intimate conversations with unrelated third parties’ should be kept out of the public eye because the evidentiary value would be ‘virtually non-existent’.

Liman ruled in favour of Lively’s request last week, agreeing that ‘highly personal and intimate information about third parties’ will only be seen by lawyers. This also means that neither Lively not Baldoni will have access to the information, which includes details about medical records, trade secrets and security measures. The judge said that ‘the risk of disclosure is great’ and could lead to further ‘gossip and innuendo’ online.

While Baldoni’s lawyers did not object to certain material being kept from the public, they argued that being unable to share findings with their clients would make it difficult to litigate the case and potentially lead both sides to raise additional legal arguments.

Liman therefore limited the ‘attorneys’ eyes only’ material to information that was ‘highly likely to cause significant business, commercial, financial or privacy injury’, adding that confidentiality would speed up the discovery process.

It is difficult for anyone following the case from afar to fully understand the impact viral stories, leaked messages and thousands of TikTok verdicts might be having on both Lively and Baldoni. Lively claims she has received ‘violent, profane, sexist and threatening communications’ in recent months because of how much information about the case has been made available to the public.

Baldoni’s published lawsuit contains private text messages between Lively and Baldoni, many of which allegedly contradict some of the claims in her original lawsuit. Others messages have gone viral for different reasons, with one exchange about Lively’s ‘mega celebrity friend’ causing a particular stir online. In the messages Lively refers to her friend, widely thought to be Taylor Swift, as ‘one of her dragons’. She told Baldoni, ‘My dragons also protect those I fight for. So really we all benefit from those gorgeous monsters of mine.’ 

There is no doubt that the publication of such details is an invitation for the public to form an opinion on the situation. Baldoni’s legal team has therefore accused Lively of trying ‘to shield from public view documents and information exchanged herein’ for the sake of her reputation. ‘Given how actively the Lively Parties have publicised and litigated Ms Lively’s claims in the media, we are surprised to now learn how vehemently she wants to prevent the public from accessing material and relevant evidence,’ Baldoni’s team wrote to the judge.

It’s true that Lively’s lawsuit was first reported on by The New York Times, catapulting the otherwise forgotten ‘It Ends With Us cast drama’ back into the public domain. Not only that, but Baldoni has also accused Reynolds of using the character of Nicepool – a faux feminist with a man bun who is sexist towards Lively’s Ladypool character – in Deadpool & Wolverine to intentionally mock him in public. Reynolds has not responded to this allegation and Baldoni is reportedly seeking evidence from Disney and Marvel Studios to back his claims.

Despite the latest ruling meaning we are likely to find out fewer details of the Baldoni vs Lively legal saga, with the trial not set until 29 May 2026, there is still a long road ahead.