Justin Baldoni attended Blake Lively’s deposition on Thursday, marking another significant point in their ongoing legal conflict. The deposition took place at Lively’s lawyer’s office in New York City, where the Wayfarer co-founder was reportedly present during the proceedings. This session occurred amid heightened tensions following Lively’s sexual harassment allegations against Baldoni, which surfaced in late 2024.
Before the deposition, a dispute unfolded between both parties about the location of Lively’s testimony. Baldoni’s legal team, led by attorney Bryan Freedman, proposed that the deposition be live-streamed at Madison Square Garden, framing it as a way to publicly validate Lively’s intention to testify. Freedman suggested,
“really serious about testifying for the world to see,”
and added that proceeds from any stream would benefit domestic violence survivors.
Lively’s Legal Team Rejects Live-Streaming Proposal
Lively’s representatives firmly opposed the streaming idea, emphasizing the gravity of the accusations. Sources close to the actress told TMZ,
“This is a serious matter about a serious allegation, not a publicity stunt.”
This stance underscored their determination to treat the legal process with confidentiality and respect for the sensitive nature of the claims.
Additionally, prior to the deposition, Lively requested a protective order to control the conditions of the deposition. This order, granted on July 14, 2025, by Judge Lewis J. Liman, gave her legal team authority over the venue and required Baldoni’s side to disclose in advance the individuals who would attend the deposition. It also mandated that Lively’s team provide Baldoni’s representatives with necessary access to technology, including a computer for viewing documents and facilities for printing and copying, within the selected space.
Implications of the Protective Order on the Case
The protective order highlights the ongoing tension and cautious approach surrounding this high-profile dispute. By placing strict limitations on the deposition’s conditions and attendance, the order reflects an effort to maintain fairness and privacy as the case advances. It also signals the seriousness with which the court is treating Lively’s allegations and the need to shield her from potential exposure or pressure during these legal proceedings.
As these developments unfold, both Baldoni and Lively remain under intense scrutiny. The battle exposes the complexities of public figures navigating sensitive legal accusations, where privacy and transparency must be balanced carefully. The next phases of the lawsuit will likely involve additional testimonies and legal exchanges, with the deposition serving as a critical moment in this fraught legal confrontation.
