Justin Baldoni calls out Blake Lively’s team over document dump

A trial date can feel far away until it suddenly is not. That is where Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are right now. With a May 18 start date on the calendar, both sides are jockeying over what the court schedule should look like in the final stretch.

This week, the judge gave Baldoni and the other Wayfarer parties a small but meaningful win that could shape how the next few weeks of trial prep unfold.

The quick update on what the judge decided

A federal judge granted Justin Baldoni’s request to extend key pretrial deadlines in Blake Lively’s lawsuit. The judge also set a status conference for April 2. The ruling comes after Baldoni and his co-defendants asked the court for more time, arguing that Lively’s team delivered a huge volume of trial material all at once.

In plain terms, the defense says it is hard to prepare for trial on a tight timeline when the other side drops a mountain of documents and lists near the finish line.

Why Baldoni’s team asked for more time

In a March 25 letter filed in the Southern District of New York, attorneys for Baldoni, 42, and the other Wayfarer parties asked Judge Lewis J. Liman for a Zoom conference and extensions on deadlines tied to pretrial filings and opposition to motions. They also asked for the final pretrial conference to be moved back by about a week.

Their argument centers on what they describe as excessive trial disclosures from Lively’s side. They say her team provided “voluminous disclosures that are not practical for trial purposes,” including nearly 1,000 potential exhibits. They also questioned whether that many exhibits could realistically be used at trial, writing, “It is difficult to imagine that even half that number would be put before the jury,” the letter states.

On top of the exhibits list, the defense pointed to Lively identifying more than 40 potential witnesses. The defense framed that as another sign that the case is being presented too broadly, describing it as “overbreadth.” From the defense perspective, all of this adds up to a lot of time spent sorting through material that may never reach the jury.

Fun fact: Unless the judge orders something different, Rule 26 sets default timing, pretrial disclosures are due at least 30 days before trial, and objections to those disclosures are due within 14 days after they are made. That default is one reason deadline extensions can matter a lot when the trial is close.

The document dump fight, in their words

The defense also argued they should not have to scramble through what they called a “document dump, containing voluminous amounts of plainly inadmissible material,” while also preparing motions under tight deadlines. Beyond the practical burden, they connected the timing to the legal work still ahead.

They said they need more time to review what was produced and to finalize core trial materials, including jury instructions. According to their filing, those draft jury instructions are already long and complex. They currently span about 85 pages and cover 13 claims and related defenses.

They also argued that it may be too soon to lock in certain trial details because the shape of the case might still change. In their view, “it is premature” to prepare a verdict sheet while key issues remain unresolved and pending motions have not been decided, including Justin Baldoni’s motion to dismiss.

Fun fact: People talk about motions in limine like they are a formal step, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not lay out a specific motion called that. They are commonly used as a pretrial tool to ask the judge to exclude or limit evidence, often tied to evidentiary rules like Federal Rule of Evidence 103.

Lively’s response, this is a delay tactic

Lively’s attorneys did not agree with the defense framing. In a March 26 filing, they pushed back on the idea that the production was a “document dump.” They described the request for more time as “an incremental tactic to delay the trial” and argued that “Defendants’ own delay should not be rewarded.”

They also pushed back on the defense’s complaint about the scope of materials and witnesses, saying there is “no reason that Defendants cannot do the same” when it comes to reviewing the disclosures and preparing their own trial approach.

In other words, Lively’s team is telling the court this is standard trial preparation, and that the defense should be able to handle it without shifting the schedule.

What does this mean for the schedule before May 18

Even small extensions matter when you are just weeks from trial. Pretrial deadlines are where both sides turn a messy case file into something a jury can actually digest. That means locking in witness lists, exhibit lists, objections, proposed jury instructions, and other filings that define what evidence is likely to come in.

The judge granted the defense more time on key pretrial filings and held a status conference on April 2. The case is still set for May 18, but it is now moving toward trial in a narrower form after the court dismissed 10 of Lively’s 13 claims.

A status conference is often a practical checkpoint. The judge can ask what is still outstanding, whether the parties are cooperating, what disputes are coming, and whether any issues could threaten the trial date.

A refresher on the lawsuit and where it stands

Lively, 38, sued Baldoni, Wayfarer, and other defendants in December 2024 over events tied to It Ends With Us. On April 2, Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed 10 of her 13 claims, leaving a narrower set of retaliation and contract-related claims to proceed toward the May 18 trial.

She is seeking more than $160 million in damages. Baldoni later filed a $400 million countersuit accusing Lively of extortion and defamation, but that case was dismissed. The court has also already tried to see if the parties could resolve this without a trial.

In February, Lively and Baldoni spent about six hours in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, and it ended without an agreement. If the case goes forward as scheduled, both actors are expected to testify at trial.

What to watch next

The April 2 status conference has already taken place, and the case remains set for trial on May 18. The key question now is how the court will manage the remaining pretrial issues after narrowing the case on April 2.

The judge gave the defense more time on pretrial filings, but the more significant development is the court’s April 2 ruling narrowing the case ahead of the May 18 trial. The litigation is still moving forward, but on a much smaller set of claims.

TL;DR

• A judge granted Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties more time by extending key pretrial deadlines in Blake Lively’s lawsuit.
• The court also scheduled a status conference for April 2 to check in on trial readiness.
• Baldoni’s team said Lively’s lawyers handed over “voluminous disclosures that are not practical for trial purposes,” including nearly 1,000 potential exhibits.
• The defense argued, “It is difficult to imagine that even half that number would be put before the jury,” and pointed to more than 40 potential witnesses as “overbreadth.”
• They also described the production as a “document dump, containing voluminous amounts of plainly inadmissible material” and said they need time to review it and finalize jury instructions.
• Lively’s team pushed back, calling the extension request “an incremental tactic to delay the trial” and arguing “Defendants’ own delay should not be rewarded.”
• The trial is still scheduled to begin May 18, and both Lively and Baldoni are expected to testify if it goes forward.

If you liked this, don’t forget to follow us for more exclusive content.

This article was made with AI assistance and human editing.

If you liked this, you might also like:

• Ryan Reynolds’ team responds to texts targeting Justin Baldoni
• Driver reveals Blake Lively’s ‘disturbing’ talk with Justin Baldoni
• Blake Lively seeks $161 million as Justin Baldoni’s legal battle unravels