Reps for both Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni reacted to the judge’s decision and shared their plans moving forward in discovery

Blake Lively  has been granted a modified protective order in her legal battle against Blake Lively  and others involved in Blake Lively , but the court limited the scope of the restrictions she sought.

On Thursday, March 13, Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that while certain confidential materials will remain protected, an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation can only be applied if their disclosure is “highly likely to cause a significant business, commercial, financial or privacy injury.”

The decision follows Lively’s request for stricter safeguards to prevent private details from leaking to the media or circulating within Hollywood. The judge acknowledged the risk of sensitive information spreading through industry gossip, writing in his ruling.

“And where confidential information is not disclosed to the media, it may spread by gossip and innuendo to those in the tight artistic community in a position to do harm to one or the other of the parties but in a manner that might not be readily and immediately detected.”

A spokesperson for Lively says in a statement, “Today, the Court rejected the Wayfarer Parties’ objections and entered the protections needed to ensure the free flow of discovery material without any risk of witness intimidation or harm to any individual’s security. With this order in place, Ms. Lively will move forward in the discovery process to obtain even more of the evidence that will prove her claims in court.”

Justin Baldoni; Blake Lively. James Devaney/GC Images; Mat Hayward/WireImage

The ruling reinforced that AEO designations should not require case-by-case discussions if the information type is generally considered appropriate for such protection.

Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, issued a statement after the court’s decision, emphasizing that the defense had never sought the kind of deeply personal information Lively claimed needed extra protection.

“We are fully in agreement with the Court’s decision to provide a narrow scope of protections to categories such as private mental health records and personal security measures that have never been of interest to us, as opposed to Ms. Lively’s exceedingly overbroad demand for documents for a 2.5-year period of time, which the court rightly quashed. We remain focused on the necessary communications that will directly contradict Ms. Lively’s unfounded accusations.”

Lively’s attorneys had requested a broad confidentiality order that would have limited access to certain materials, arguing that the lawsuit’s high-profile nature created an increased risk of leaks. Her legal team claimed that keeping some documents restricted to lawyers only was necessary to prevent reputational harm and media scrutiny.

Baldoni’s team pushed back, arguing that Lively’s request was excessive and could prevent critical evidence from being accessed during the case.

The court ultimately rejected her attempt to impose strict limitations on all materials and instead focused on specific protections for highly personal information