Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Parties/Justin Baldoni – Alleged Dump Truck

Ms. Blake Lively’s Sanctions Motion Denied in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Mr. Justin Baldoni

March 17, 2026

“Colorado policy could shield AI from complaints regarding unauthorized practice of law”

April 1, 2026

Published by Michael Berman at March 27, 2026

Tags

On March 25, 2026, the Wayfarer Parties filed a letter motion, seeking a one week extension and a court conference. Docket No. 1264, Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al, No. 1:24-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y). Defendants allege a discovery violation, among other things. The core allegation in the letter is:

Defense counsel should not have to sift through a document dump of exhibits and designations containing voluminous amounts of plainly inadmissible material during a compressed period of time when the parties are also tasked with drafting motions on a range of issues. Nor should time be spent on motions in limine to screen out irrelevant, prejudicial, and otherwise improper material contained within hundreds of exhibits Lively may not actually use at trial.

The central factual allegation in Defendants’ letter is:

Just after midnight last Friday, for example, Lively’s counsel identified nearly 1,000 purported trial exhibits for inclusion in plaintiff’s portion of the Pretrial Order. It is difficult to imagine that even half that number would be put before the jury. Many are lengthy exhibits, consisting of numerous text messages or pages, many of which are obviously irrelevant or inadmissible under multiple Rules, without specification of what particular message(s) or materials might actually be introduced. Due to an apparent technical issue, Lively’s list of potential exhibits also does not make clear on which page each exhibit ends and whether attachments referenced on the face of the exhibit are intended to be parts of the exhibit as well. Of the nearly 1,000 exhibits identified, at least 100 consist of articles and social media posts that were not produced in discovery and have yet to be provided to defense counsel in reviewable format. Wayfarer’s counsel brought these issues to the attention of Lively’s counsel in a meet and confer earlier today, and Lively’s counsel is investigating possible errors and taking steps to complete the production. However, Lively’s counsel declined to reconsider the scope of their production, maintaining that the volume is appropriate. [emphasis added].

It is also alleged that Ms. Lively identified “in excess of 40 trial witnesses and designated “broad swaths of deposition testimony that include plainly inadmissible materials….” Additional arguments are presented in the letter. It is available on Bloomberg Law, Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al, Docket No. 1:24-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 31, 2024), Court Docket.

Docket No. 1266 is Ms. Lively’s letter response in opposition. She asserted: “While Defendants feign shock at the number of exhibits proposed, Defendants’ counsel—not Ms. Lively’s—proposed numbering plaintiff’s trial exhibits from 1-1000, with defense exhibits to follow.” In pertinent part, responsive letter states:

Second, Defendants have misrepresented the state of pre-trial exchanges, suggesting that Ms. Lively has engaged in bad faith and/or purposefully obfuscated anticipated trial exhibits, trial witnesses, or deposition testimony for presentation. This is false. As Defendants acknowledge, Ms. Lively is the plaintiff in this case and bears the burden of proof on thirteen causes of action. The parties’ initial disclosures include more than 230 witnesses, 89,000 documents have been produced, and 37 witnesses have been deposed—many of whom reside outside the jurisdiction of this court. As such, the volume of exhibits, witnesses, and designations should come as no surprise to Defendants and is proportional to the needs of this case. Moreover, Defendants are represented by sixteen attorneys from four law firms that have entered appearances to date, and recently included three additional Shapiro Arato Bach LLP attorneys in their latest transmittal of pre-trial materials. These nineteen attorneys are surely supported by many other attorneys who have not yet noticed appearances and who are capable of reviewing and objecting to evidence in a timely manner. Ms. Lively’s counsel has worked diligently to cull the universe of documents, witnesses, and deposition testimony to those that may be offered at trial, and to review and promptly proffer their own objections to the hundreds of exhibits and pages of deposition designations provided by Defendants, on the parties’ negotiated schedule. There is no reason that Defendants cannot do the same. Moreover, Ms. Lively’s counsel already agreed during the conferral yesterday afternoon and again in an email yesterday evening – both of which occurred before Defendants filed the Letter Motion – to evaluate ways to narrow the exhibit list and, of course, to consider objections to initial deposition designations and to narrow the same…. The offered relief should be more than satisfactory without the need for this Court’s intervention, or a wholesale continuance of pretrial dates. [bold in original; other emphasis added].

Plaintiff also responded to the technical glitch in her proposed exhibit list.

Docket No. 1265, states:

ORDER granting 1264 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The extension request is GRANTED. The Court will hold a video conference via Microsoft Teams on April 2, 2026, at 5:00 PM. The parties will be provided instructions for hearing access via email. The Court will post an audio only dial-in number on the docket for the public and press to access the hearing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 3/26/2026) (ks) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

For more on this case, please refer to: