Justin Baldoni Seeks To Block Blake Lively's Witnesses to Testify in Upcoming Court Battle

Justin Baldoni has asked a New York judge to limit which witnesses Blake Lively can call in their upcoming retaliation trial, according to court filings cited in April 2026.

The latest motion comes after an earlier ruling that dismissed Lively's sexual harassment claims against Baldoni, narrowing the scope of what will now proceed to trial. What remains are claims of retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract, setting the stage for a more limited but still highly contentious legal battle.

Blake Lively's Witnesses Targeted

TMZ reported that court documents filed by Baldoni's legal team argue that several of Lively's proposed witnesses should not be allowed to testify, describing parts of their expected evidence as a 'grab bag of awkward comments, minor confrontations, and perceived slights.'

The filing, first reported on 11 April 2026, pushes for strict limits on testimony that Baldoni's side says would have been inadmissible even if the sexual harassment claims had moved forward.

Among those named is actor Jenny Slate, who appeared in It Ends With Us. Baldoni's filing references her reported complaints about comments made on set, including an alleged remark describing her character as 'sexy' in costume, as well as concerns about being offered upgraded housing after becoming a new mother. His legal team argues Slate herself indicated the matter was resolved quickly and should not be revisited in court.

The filing also seeks to exclude testimony linked to author Colleen Hoover, who wrote the original novel the film is based on. Baldoni's team argues she was not present on set and therefore cannot provide relevant first-hand evidence about the production environment or any alleged conduct at the centre of Lively's claims.

Industry Figures in Lively's Witness Slate

Further objections in the filing extend to Liz Plank, a former co-host on Baldoni's podcast, whom Lively's team reportedly intends to call as a witness. Baldoni's lawyers argue she had no involvement in the film production and therefore should not be permitted to offer evidence in a case focused on workplace conduct during filming.

Actor Isabela Ferrer, who also worked on It Ends With Us, is similarly referenced in the motion. According to Baldoni's filing, Ferrer did not raise complaints with the production company Wayfarer and had previously given positive feedback regarding her experience, including interactions with Baldoni and the film's intimacy coordinator.

The overall argument from Baldoni's side is consistent throughout the filing: that Lively's witness list includes individuals whose involvement is either peripheral or unrelated to the specific claims still under consideration. His lawyers say allowing such testimony would widen the trial beyond its narrowed legal scope and introduce material they consider irrelevant.

Can Blocking Witnesses Help Baldoni?

Lively's legal team has not publicly responded in detail to the latest filing at the time of writing. Earlier this month, a judge dismissed 10 of Lively's 13 claims, including allegations of sexual harassment and defamation tied to comments reportedly made by Baldoni's attorney, Bryan Freedman.

What remains for trial are allegations of retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract.

If the court agrees and removes them, Baldoni could benefit in a few ways, as it would limit the emotional weight of the case. High-profile witnesses like colleagues or public figures can sometimes influence how a jury perceives the story, even if their evidence is only loosely connected. Fewer witnesses can mean a more controlled, narrower narrative and reduce the chance of 'collateral storytelling, ' where testimony drifts into general workplace behaviour or unrelated disputes.

But there's another side to it. Removing witnesses doesn't automatically weaken Lively's case in a legal sense if she still has strong direct evidence, documents, or key testimony from people who were actually present for relevant events. Courts are generally focused on relevance and admissibility, not volume.

So even if Baldoni succeeds in blocking some witnesses, it's not a guaranteed advantage. It's more about shaping the boundaries of what the jury will be allowed to hear, rather than deciding the outcome itself.