Blake Lively seeks sanctions against Justin Baldoni’s team over deposition conduct

Blake Lively’s legal team is asking a federal judge to sanction Justin Baldoni’s attorneys over what they describe as repeated misconduct during discovery in their ongoing civil dispute. In a December 19 letter to U.S. District Court Judge Lewis J. Liman, Lively’s lawyers contend that Baldoni’s team crossed professional boundaries by questioning the actress about her sexual and romantic history and by engaging in behavior they characterized as inappropriate and irrelevant to the case. The filing, reviewed by People on Saturday, also alleges a “basic lack of decorum” during depositions, including repeated speaking objections, interruptions, and, at times, demeaning witnesses on the record. The motion seeks sanctions and a remedy aimed at ensuring fair examination during depositions, including the deposition of one of Baldoni’s expert witnesses. The filing also requests reimbursement of fees tied to the supplemental deposition.

The dispute centers on a broader legal battle between Lively and Baldoni that began with a December filing in which Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment, retaliatory conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The civil action named Baldoni, his company Wayfarer Studios, and several associates, including the studio’s CEO and backers, as defendants. Baldoni later expanded his own legal action, including claims against Lively and others tied to a separate matter, with a trial date linked to a May 2026 calendar. A separate related suit involving the parties was reportedly dismissed in June, though the current case remains active ahead of trial.

The December filing from Lively’s team emphasized that questions about sexual history have no bearing on the matters at issue and should be barred under applicable rape shield principles designed to protect a person’s sexual history in court. In the September 29 correspondence cited in the court papers, Lively’s lawyers asserted the line had been crossed, stating, “Ms. Lively’s sexual and/or romantic history has no bearing on the matters at issue in this case and we will not tolerate such examination.” The filing argues that the strategic use of such lines during depositions was improper and demonstrated a broader pattern of conduct designed to impede fair examination.

The motion also argues that Baldoni’s team impeded, delayed, and frustrated the fair examination of witnesses during the supplemental deposition, describing the session as compromised by the defense’s actions. As part of the relief requested, Lively’s lawyers seek to compel a fresh deposition of one of Baldoni’s expert witnesses and to recover associated costs and attorney fees. The case remains scheduled for trial on May 18, 2026, a date that underscores the parties’ urgency in resolving the dispute.

The Daily Mail, which first published the details of the filing, said that the outlet had reached out to representatives for both Lively and Baldoni for comment. In Lively’s court filings, the actress and her counsel frame the deposition conduct as not only inappropriate but potentially prejudicial, arguing that the defense compromised the integrity of the discovery process. The court filings maintain that the requested sanctions are necessary to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and ensure that testimony is obtained in an orderly and respectful manner.

The overarching dispute reflects a high-profile clash in the entertainment industry, drawing attention to how deposition tactics can shape the trajectory of civil cases involving celebrities and studio executives. While both sides have denied all allegations against them, the filings highlight the importance of procedural safeguards in complex lawsuits that touch on workplace conduct, reputational considerations, and corporate relationships within the entertainment ecosystem.

IMAGE_PLACEHOLDER

In sum, Lively’s legal team argues that repeated speaking objections, interruptions, and demeanment during depositions go beyond aggressive cross-examination and into inappropriate conduct that has no bearing on the issues at stake. The request for sanctions, a refreshed deposition of a Baldoni expert, and reimbursement of supplemental deposition fees underscores the seriousness with which the actress’s camp views the conduct at issue. As the May 2026 trial window approaches, observers will be watching how the court interprets these procedural disputes and whether the judge will intervene to ensure a fair and orderly discovery process.