Live updates as actress seeks stronger protective order against her ‘It Ends With Us’ co-star

Justin Baldoni’s legal team thinks Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are playing the celebrity card in their legal battle.

A hearing was held on Thursday about Lively’s request for a stronger protective order in the case, which stems from It Ends With Us workplace allegations. Her request was based on threatening messages she and other parties allegedly received about the case.

Lively’s legal team requested to have certain discovery material categorized as “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” limiting what’s made public, given the nature of the case, personally and professionally — from Lively’s medical records to business trade secrets. That includes text messages to high-profile individuals that may not be directly related to the case.

Lively’s attorney, Meryl Governski, made their argument, saying her client’s “health and mental health records … have no business being publicly [shared].” She said there is no way to “unring the bell if this information is released publicly.”

The attorney said that the way the case has played out so far, amid accusations that Baldoni waged a smear campaign against Lively for accusing him of sexual harassment, there “are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders.”

The lawyer said they “want to ensure that we’re able to protect our client’s information — and not just take [Baldoni attorney Bryan Freedman’s] word for it that he would hold it in good faith.”

She said protecting texts especially was crucial. Among the adjacent players in this case are such celebrities as Taylor Swift.

“There is a significant chance of irreparable harm if marginal conversations with high profile individuals with no relevance to the case were to fall into wrong hands,” the attorney told the court.

Judge Lewis J. Liman, of the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, told Lively’s attorney, “There is a huge amount of information that is of PR value … that will, if the case goes forward, become public. So a lot of what you were talking about is just inherent in the nature of the case. If you sue a high profile person in this industry as to which there’s a lot of attention paid, it’s going to get picked up by the press.”

Freedman argued for Baldoni that the existing protective order they all agreed to should be sufficient. “It completely protects the parties,” he said, and he agreed that Lively’s health records should be “confidential. We have no intention of violating the court’s order… We aren’t disclosing anything to the public.”

Freedman suggested the order went beyond the scope of what was necessary because A-listers are involved.

“It feels like what the other sides are asking for is that because there is celebrity, because there are people who are powerful people in the industry, that somehow they get treated differently, and somehow there’s a different law that applies to them” that wouldn’t to everyday people.

Freedman said, “We think the [current] order protects all of the parties, and frankly, we see no difference because someone is a celebrity.”

Lively and Reynolds’ security detail was also a topic — and keeping information about that private.

Freedman said that “no one is interested in what somebody’s security is doing… It’s not even remotely relevant to the case.” He said that the rules “should be no different than for any other case.”

Liman said he would take it all under advisement and would provide a ruling at a future date.