Blake Full of life and Justin Baldoni‘s authorized groups have spoken out whereas they await for the choose’s ruling on the actress’ request for a stronger protecting order.
In the course of the Thursday, March 6, listening to, Full of life’s lawyer claimed that Baldoni’s staff “created improper disclosure of data.”
“We need to cease the general public publication of this info, within the case, throughout discovery. The foundations try to stop the burden to be on the third events,” the actress’ lawyer stated throughout Thursday’s listening to. “We must always not make the handfuls of third events run to the court docket for cover. We’re supposed to scale back the burden on third events. He ought to drop the third-party subpoena towards the safety agency that protects Full of life and Reynolds.”
Bryan Freedman, an lawyer for 41-year-old Baldoni, denounced the claims in his personal assertion earlier than the choose.
“These are issues of ‘for lawyer’s eyes solely’ restrictions,” Freedman stated on Thursday. “It is a case the place nobody has any intention of harming Ms. Full of life in any manner. She detailed the sexual harassment claims and put that on the market. My purchasers have been adjudicated as responsible proper when this was filed. My shopper has a proper to battle again and to defend himself. We need to comply with the protecting order and place the burden on the celebration, who desires higher safety, to go to court docket and be clear.”
Full of life’s staff additional needed to guard her non-public correspondence with “high-profile people.”
“There’s a important probability of irreparable hurt if marginal conversations with high-profile people with no relevance to the case have been to fall into incorrect fingers,” her lawyer claimed.
Freedman, in the meantime, replied, “We can’t deal with superstar folks, and people who find themselves highly effective within the business in another way from different folks.”

Whereas an official ruling was not made on Thursday, the choose shared the choice could be “quickly.”
Information broke in February that Full of life, 37, and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, requested a stronger PO than the usual one they have been granted when she and It Ends With Us costar Baldoni first filed their lawsuits.
“As detailed in Ms. Full of life’s Amended Grievance, Ms. Full of life, her household, different members of the forged, numerous truth witnesses, and people which have spoken out publicly in help of Ms. Full of life have obtained violent, profane, sexist, and threatening communications,” a letter from Full of life and Reynolds, 48, learn, noting Full of life was looking for “further protections.”
Full of life beforehand named Baldoni in a December 2024 lawsuit, claiming that he sexually harassed her and fostered a “hostile work atmosphere” on the set of 2024’s It Ends With Us. She amended her grievance final month, detailing the alleged “emotional influence” she is dealing with from the authorized fallout.
“The emotional influence on Ms. Full of life has been excessive, not solely affecting her, however her household, together with her husband and 4 kids,” court docket docs obtained by Us learn. “There are days when she has struggled to get off the bed, and he or she continuously chooses to not enterprise exterior in public.”
Full of life additionally claimed that she has obtained a number of violent social media messages amid the authorized drama. Baldoni has denied all the allegations. He additionally filed a defamation lawsuit towards Full of life and Reynolds earlier this 12 months. (The married couple, in the meantime, denied the accusations.)
“Anybody receiving violent messages by nameless events is abhorrent. When non-public events have been wrongfully accused by Full of life and her paid staff of wrongdoing, they obtained steady demise threats and visits to personal properties the place younger kids reside after their addresses have been leaked on her preliminary complaints,” Baldoni’s staff informed Us in a February assertion relating to Full of life’s protecting order request. “Nobody ought to need to face that, particularly non-public events who shouldn’t have means for safety element. We don’t condone harmful rhetoric focused towards anybody regardless of the state of affairs.”