Blake Lively makes unexpected move and drops major claims against Justin Baldoni
Blake Lively has withdrawn two of the claims that she made about It Ends With Us director, Justin Baldoni.
Lively and Baldoni have been embroiled in a bitter feud since It Ends With Us, a book based on the Colleen Hoover book of the same name, was released in August 2024.
In December, following months of speculation, Lively launched legal proceedings against the director with claims stemming from the production of the film.
In the legal complaint, she made various allegations, but is now attempting to drop the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The move comes after Baldoni's legal team attempted to gain access to Lively's medical records, reported Variety.
The outlet claimed that Baldoni's lawyers are attempting to get the actor to sign a release to her therapy notes and other information relevant to her claim that she suffered 'severe emotional distress and pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, frustration and mental anguish.'
Judge Lewis Liman wrote this morning that Baldoni's motion to compel Lively to release the notes was denied 'because of 'based on the Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn.'
Variety reported the judge commented: 'The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion. For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.'
This means that Lively's legal team can no longer present evidence of her alleged emotional distress claims.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Documents from Baldoni's team, revealed: 'Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively's counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims.
The filing added that Lively is 'only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice,' and 'refused the Wayfarer Parties' reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice'
Lively's lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, told Variety that Baldoni's filing was 'a press stunt'.
They added: 'The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms Lively's original claims no longer necessary.
'Ms Lively continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims.'
Baldoni's team counter-sued Lively's team for civil extortion, defamation and invasion of privacy in January. More Trending
As the pair's legal teams continue to exchange barbs, the most recent update in the legal battle was in May, as pop star Taylor Swift was pulled into the dispute.
Baldoni's lawyer (Bryan Freedman) alleged in a letter that Lively's lawyer threatened to leak private messages between the actress and Taylor if the singer did not release a statement supporting her. This letter was later struck from the docket.
It was also alleged that Swift encouraged Baldoni to accept script rewrites by Lively. Representatives for the singer also denied this claim, and the subpoena was dropped two weeks later.
Metro has reached out to Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively's representatives for comment.
Got a story?
If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you.
MORE: 'Once in a generation' horror movie could finally get another sequel after 10 years
MORE: Chilling horror starring iconic British actor soars up Amazon Prime chart
MORE: Ryan Coogler makes controversial decision about a Sinners sequel
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Six methods people claim will induce labour, rated by a midwife
Meghan Markle tried to twerk her baby out — and she might be onto something. To mark Princess Lilibet's fourth birthday, the Duchess of Sussex shared a never-before-seen video from the maternity ward, filmed before her daughter was born. The clip, which some are calling cringeworthy, showed Meghan throwing it back to Baby Momma Dance by Starrkeisha, with Prince Harry bopping alongside. Just your average royal birth preparation. She captioned the video: 'Both of our children were a week past their due dates.. so when spicy food, all that walking and acupuncture didn't work — there was only one thing left to do.' To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video With Lillibet arriving safely, the world can only assume Meghan's rhythmic tactics worked. We've all heard the same theories as Meghan, but every mum's experience is different, and what works for some, definitely won't for others. So, can a last-minute boogie really get things moving? Metro asked Lesley Bland, lead midwife for education at My Expert Midwife, to share her thoughts on the most popular labour-inducing tricks — and how effective they are out of five. Turns out Meghan's dancing wasn't so random after all. 'If you are going to try anything, try a little boogie, shimmy, or a wiggle,' says Lesley. The midwife explains dancing — or similar exercise — can encourage the baby's head to descend through the pelvis, which in turn puts pressure onto the cervix, which can start uterine contractions.' However, she adds: 'As always, there is no guarantee that your Lambada or Salsa will induce labour, but you might have fun doing it, which will release that incredible hormone of love, oxytocin, which in itself is associated with labour.' Lesley advises giving it a try. 'At best, your labour will kick in; at worst, you'll have fun! Lesley says this is another method of encouraging labour that she can get on board with. 'Adopting an upright mobile position can help to get the baby's head down into the pelvis, which puts pressure onto the cervix and kickstarts early labour.' She says gentle walking three to four times a week, and curb walking (where one foot is on the curb and one on the road) have been recommended. 'Exercise in general can have positive effects on labour and recovery in the postnatal period,' she adds. While it's not guaranteed to induce labour, she suggests trying it to boost your mental health and general well-being too. This is a commonly suggested way to induce labour, but is there any truth to it? Lesley says: 'There have been some trials looking at sexual intercourse to induce labour, but the results are very spurious, and the conclusions are uncertain. 'We know sperm contains prostaglandins, which are hormone-like substances that are used in the induction of labour to make the cervix more favourable.' She adds that sex can also release the love hormone, oxytocin, which is associated with labour. Is there any harm in trying it? Lesley says: 'Some women find having sex at the end of the pregnancy really uncomfortable, while others enjoy the intimacy it brings with their partner before the sleepless nights.' She adds that sex should always be avoided if you have a low-lying placenta, have experienced any vaginal bleeding or have an amniotic water shave broken. If you have been advised not to for any other reason by your healthcare team, you should also abstain. Becca Mascarenhas, Midwife at The Portland Hospital (part of HCA Healthcare), tells Metro: 'Expectant mums are often keen to try natural ways to bring on labour, but it's important to know which methods are based on evidence, and which ones are more of a myth. 'It's also important to speak to your midwife before trying any labour-inducing techniques. Every woman and every pregnancy is different, so personalised advice is key. 'I would also add that we only ever recommend any of these techniques from 37 weeks pregnant to reduce the risk of pre-term labour.' Lesley says: 'This one has done the rounds for years, and, to be honest, is probably one of the ones that I would be encouraging women not to try.' Spicy food can cause a degree of irritation to the gastro system, which is more likely to cause diarrhoea than induce labour, according to Lesley. 'If you enjoy spicy food, then there is no reason not to have it if you really fancy it, but as a midwife, I wouldn't be using it as a means of inducing labour.' Some suggest eating prunes for the same reason as eating spicy food. Lesly says: 'It's more likely to give you loose bowels than induce labour, but if you fancy some then go for it.' Drinking raspberry leaf tea has been shared far and wide on social media as a natural remedy to induce labour. However, Lesley advises against it. She explains: 'Raspberry leaf tea helps to strengthen the smooth uterine muscle wall, which means that when contractions do start, they are more effective and efficient, helping labour to progress well.' More Trending So, the fruity tea gets an extra point for helping during labour, but as Lesley says: 'There is no evidence to support the theory that drinking it will actually induce labour, and as a midwife, I would not recommend this for that purpose.' Lesley explains that the method of drinking castor oil was used in the past as an alternative method for inducing labour, even during the 20th Century. She says: 'As a registered midwife, I would strongly recommend not even giving it a go. 'There has been some evidence that suggests castor oil can cause some uterine contractions, but if we are being honest about it, the effects are more likely to be an upset stomach and diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting than induction of labour.' Do you have a story to share? Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@ View More » MORE: King Charles serenaded by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's wedding singers at SXSW London MORE: Intruder arrested at Windsor Castle close to William and Kate's home MORE: Full list of the lavish presents Royals have received since 2020 Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Donald Trump's travel ban isn't actually about protecting Americans
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Donald Trump's latest travel ban isn't about making America safe. It's about making cruelty normal. The administration wants us to believe this is a sober, considered security measure. Twelve countries blacklisted. Seven more partially restricted. The justification? In Trump's words: 'We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.' The accusation seems to be that these countries pose a threat to the United States based on historical precedent. Let's take that at face value for a moment. Myanmar, for example, is in a state of disarray. The UK Government advises against travel due to civil unrest, armed conflict, and arbitrary enforcement of local laws. So, it is possible that it has no functioning national vetting system. However, as far as I know, there has never been a single incident of a person from Myanmar carrying out a terrorist attack on US soil. Not one. The people fleeing from Myanmar are escaping widespread violence, not inciting it. So what exactly is Trump protecting against? The answer isn't found in intelligence briefings or airport protocols. It's found in a different kind of calculation – a political one. It's a message to Trump's base that the world – especially those with different faiths or colours – is dangerous. That only he can protect them and that empathy is a threat to be eliminated, not a value to be upheld. It comes after the Trump administration sought to end deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans in the US. They were (and some still are, after a federal judge blocked the move) allowed to remain under a scheme that permits people to work and live there if their home countries are deemed unsafe. The US Government's own assessment of Venezuela is that citizens and tourists are at risk of 'wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure'. Cruelty isn't the side effect. It's the point. It will tear apart families mid-airport transfer and strand people who have already sold everything for the chance of safety or opportunity. Foreign students who want to study or take part in exchange programmes are on the chopping block – a move that, I'm sure, has nothing to do with the legal battle between Harvard and the Trump Administration who froze billions of dollars of federal funding after accusing it of failing to root out antisemitism on campus. And let's talk about who's not on the list. Egypt, for example, where the suspect in the recent Boulder attack came from. Not included. This is despite Trump specifically mentioning this terrorist attack as a justification for implementing the new travel ban. Saudi Arabia, whose nationals carried out 9/11? Also not included. Those banned are often fleeing conflict, violence or persecution for their gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. All of which makes one thing clear: This isn't about risk, it's about optics. By design or naivety, women and girls, whose reproductive rights have already been weaponised and criminalised by Trump, and LGBTQ+ individuals, whose protections have also been stripped away, are now the targets of this performative and punitive ban. Even setting aside the moral argument, the legal case is clear. No one is advocating complete open borders, but if travellers have the proper documentation, how can you justify turning them away? When Trump introduced a similar order in 2017, targeting seven Muslim-majority countries, it was condemned as a 'Muslim ban' and tied up in endless legal challenges. President Joe Biden repealed it in 2021. This time, Trump says the rationale for the countries chosen is based on visa overstay rates or political instability. But, in my view, the evidence doesn't back this up. The White House wants you to believe this is a temporary measure, a pause until things can be properly assessed, but there's no transparency, no end date, and no consistent criteria. This is, as usual, theatre. Cruelty as a campaign tactic and the weaponisation of lives as a headline generator. More Trending Theatre has become the new normal for US politics, but we should still call it what it is. Punitive. Senseless. And above all, ineffective. A policy that punishes students, bans refugees, and abandons families is not national security. It's moral submission. This isn't border control; it's moral control in Trump's America, where kindness is weakness. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: The Virgin Island hate is atrocious – season 2 will prove me right MORE: In defence of Meghan Markle's twerking pregnancy video MORE: Double decker bus roof ripped off after crashing into railway bridge in South Norwood
Metro
3 hours ago
- Metro
Doctor Who fans fume that character was 'butchered' as actor speaks out on exit
Doctor Who season 15 came to a divisive end last week, and one show's stars has finally spoken out about her exit. Varada Sethu, who played Belinda Chandrab– the latest companion to join Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor in the Tardis – addressed her exit on Instagram. In an emotional post, the 30-year-old apologised for being 'late to the party' but said she 'needed to take a few days' to process the show, the finale and everything Doctor Who had brought into her life. 'My heart has doubled in size,' she wrote. 'I have felt so so full of gratitude and love, I still feel I haven't found the words to express it. It has been a true gift to know a woman like Belinda, I will never forget our journey together. 'Thank you @ncutigatwa for being my partner in crime, my beloved Doctor. You are unending, pure magic, what a privilege it's been to bear witness to it. Mom & Dad forever❤️ My sweet angel @milliegibbo, thank you for your kindness, for always lifting me up, you have stolen everyone's hearts!! I cannot wait to see what life has in store for you.' Wake up to find news on your TV shows in your inbox every morning with Metro's TV Newsletter. Sign up to our newsletter and then select your show in the link we'll send you so we can get TV news tailored to you. Varada finished by thanking the 'beautiful fans' and Russell T Davies, adding she finally understands what he meant when he said her life would 'never be the same again'. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Despite Varada's grateful words, a number of fans aren't happy with how Belinda (and Varada) were treated in the finale with some going so far as to say her character was 'butchered'. 'You and Ncuti deserved BETTER!' wrote ryan__norman__97, while Merrony97 added: 'Fantastic character until the final episode where it completely jumped the shark'. Noinxo wrote, 'Feels incomplete, like someone gave me a book with pages ripped out of it; but leaving the last chapter.' 'They didn't do your character justice, but it was a Beautiful ending to a chapter. Such an amazing cast and amazing characters. Still, though, continue success in everything you do!' Sadly, this feeling that Belinda was done dirty is pretty pervasive in the Doctor Who community at the moment. Across Reddit, X, and Instagram, you'll find countless fans praising Varada for her performance but complaining about the treatment of Belinda in the finale. Their main issue seems to be that the character was established as an independent woman who had her agency stolen from her when the Doctor rewrote reality to bring her 'wish world' child, Poppy, back to life. They believe the Doctor took this decision without considering whether Belinda would have wanted a child in the first place. Our Deputy TV editor Tom Percival gives his verdict… The most recent Doctor Who finale had some moments of greatness, but honestly, for the most part, it was a confusing mess. The episode's big baddies, The Rani and Omega, were dealt with far too quickly, the stuff about Poppy was harder to wrap your heart around than theoretical physics, and don't get me started on Susan's disappearing act. That said, I'd be lying if I said I didn't find Ncuti's final decision to regenerate to save a child quite emotional, and I did enjoy seeing the Time Hotel again. Of course, the elephant in the room is Belinda's ultimate fate. I'm not sure if it was just bad storytelling or a poorly conceived idea, but the Doctor rewriting reality to give a woman a child (without her consent) just left a bad taste in my mouth. You don't have to look far to find fans expressing this view. On another Instagram post, one fan going by the name _raggedywho wrote 'NEVER forgive RTD for what he did to Ar Belinda…' Meanwhile, _ataho_ said, 'The character assassination of Belinda Chandra, Original timeline. Belinda, we mourn you.' On Reddit, Icy_Bandicoot3674 complained that 'Episode 1 Belinda is a completely different character to the rest of the season, and by episode 8, there is absolutely nothing left. She basically doesn't exist from Ep 4 to Ep 8'. This sentiment was echoed by agitatedandroid, who added, Belinda could have been so much more.' 'Perhaps a sort of cross between Donna and Martha. But she was never really given an opportunity to even be Belinda,' they continued. 'And by the end, she's not even the Belinda she started as. Her entire reality is rewritten into what the Doctor wants.' KronksKronk, however, was probably the most withering, labelling Belinda's treatment as 'gross'. More Trending 'The Belinda from episode 1 is… dead in a way, they raged. 'Her whole life got rewritten without her consent, so she suddenly has a kid and an ex-husband, and it gets played off as a victory.' It wasn't just Belinda's fate that annoyed fans who tuned in for the finale. Others were let down by the treatment of the Rani and Omega, two classic villains fans have wanted to see return for years. Others, though, were just disappointed to see Ncuti Gatwa regenerate into Billie Piper, a move criticised by some as stunt casting. Doctor Who is available to stream now on iPlayer. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. View More » MORE: Race Across The World fans moved as episode honours Sam Gardiner after death aged 24 MORE: Former BBC studios where EastEnders was filmed riddled with asbestos MORE: Violent Doctor Who scene 'put show at risk of being cancelled before it started'
