Blake Lively’s Attorneys Warn Against ‘Online Content Creators’ That ‘Parrot’ Justin Baldoni’s Line

The battle between “It Ends With Us” co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni revolves around questions of harassment, consent, celebrity, and the rules of warfare over one’s public image. Little surprise, then, that it’s become chum for online content creators. And as bad as it’s gotten, it could get worse.

That’s why, at the outset of the litigation, Lively has asked a judge to keep certain information confidential and away from the armchair legal commentators of TikTok and YouTube. (Lively is suing Baldoni for sexual harassment and retaliation, while Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios allies are suing her and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, for defamation.)

Last week, Lively sought a protective order to maintain the privacy of financial data, health records and other personal information, some of which involves other “high-profile individuals.”

Baldoni’s lawyers responded Tuesday, saying they would agree to a standard protective order but not to the heightened layer of secrecy demanded by Lively’s side. In the process, they alluded to Lively’s “tarnished image” and took a swipe at Reynolds, saying it was inappropriate for him to make a joke about the situation at the “SNL” 50th anniversary special.

In their own response on Tuesday afternoon, Lively’s lawyers argued that Baldoni’s response shows exactly why a protective order is needed.

They noted the existence of “certain online content creators” who “frequently parrot the Wayfarer Parties’ line.” As examples, they cited Perez Hilton and Candace Owens, and noted that Hilton and Baldoni have both been represented by attorney Bryan Freedman. They also argued that such online discussion influences media coverage of the case to Lively’s disadvantage.

“The travels of the mischaracterization embraced by the Opposition through this manufactured echo chamber, by itself, provides ample justification for a Protective Order that establishes adequate protections for third-party privacy interests,” Lively’s side wrote.

While they were at it, Lively’s attorneys also availed themselves of the opportunity to get in a few digs at Baldoni and his attorneys, saying they had displayed “callous disregard and disrespect for a woman advocating for the most basic workplace protections against sexual harassment.”

As the Lively attorneys also noted, a protective order is “standard and expected in even the most mundane civil litigation.”

The two sides are also at odds over the proper scope of Lively’s subpoenas to phone carriers. Both sides have alleged that they and their allies have received violent threats as a result of the litigation.