Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's Legal Showdown: How Unsealed Texts Turned Hollywood Lawsuit Into Public Spectacle

What began as a workplace dispute tied to It Ends With Us has evolved into one of Hollywood’s most closely watched legal showdowns, with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni now locked in a case that is as much about reputation as it is about the law.

With a May 2026 trial looming, recently unsealed messages and testimony are intensifying scrutiny and raising the stakes for both sides.

Despite a court-ordered settlement conference in New York earlier this year, the two sides did not reach a resolution. Unless an agreement is reached, the case is set to go before a jury on May 18.

Lively filed her complaint in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation on the set of the film. Baldoni, who was both director and co-star, has denied the allegations, and his legal team has unsuccessfully sought to dismiss the claims through motions, including a request for summary judgment.

Much of the case’s public intensity stems from the steady release of private communications. Court filings have exposed blunt behind-the-scenes commentary, including a deposition in which a Sony executive said she referred to Lively as a “f***ing terrorist,” while another executive allegedly called her “epic level stupid” in internal emails.

Other materials include a voice message from Lively to Baldoni ahead of filming, in which she described the difficulties of having a new baby and just a week off between her previous project and It Ends With Us, saying, “obviously there’s selfish reasons” she was sharing her concerns, hoping for additional time to prepare.

Texts attributed to Ryan Reynolds have also surfaced, with the actor allegedly calling Baldoni a “thoroughbred, predatory fraudster” and an “inexplicably toxic mess.” A representative for Reynolds defended his involvement, saying, “What husband wouldn’t support his wife and the mother of his children?”

“There is a strong presumption against sealing documents under both common law and first amendment principles,” noted Erica Barrow, a New York litigation partner at BakerHostetler.

“The public disclosure of sensitive information can be a critical tool in coercing a settlement because while a party’s case may have merits the litigant may be more concerned with the ramifications in the court of public opinion,” Barrow explained.

According to Kaivan Shroff, founder of the Yale School of Management Social Media Hub, “courts unseal documents because there’s a built-in presumption in our legal system that judicial records should be public, especially when they factor into decisions that a judge is making.

”Documents are typically only sealed when there is a compelling reason for privacy, such as trade secrets or fairness concerns.

Once documents are unsealed, Shroff said, the case “doesn’t just proceed legally, but it unfolds publicly.”

“What parties fight to protect are the materials that create exposure outside the courtroom and we’ve already seen how much both parties are litigating this in the court of public opinion,” he added. “That can increase pressure to settle because the reputational costs start rising alongside the legal ones. The bigger the stars, the more they have to lose.”