Baldoni Lively legal battle deepens

Isabela Ferrer claims in filings that Justin Baldoni and his team harass her as they seek additional documents in the It Ends With Us dispute.

Baldoni Lively Case Deepens With Ferrer Subpoena Fight

The Cut reports that Isabela Ferrer, the actress who played a younger version of Blake Lively’s character in It Ends With Us, says in new filings that Justin Baldoni and his team are harassing her. Baldoni’s motion on August 12 asks to serve Ferrer by alternative means after attempts to reach her through her attorney and process servers failed. The filing includes affidavits from two process servers but did not redact the addresses used to identify Ferrer.

Ferrer’s lawyer, Sanford Michelman, argues that Baldoni’s subpoena is another attempt to drag Ferrer into litigation she has tried to avoid. He notes that the subpoena seeks documents Ferrer allegedly did not produce or were not requested when Lively’s team subpoenaed her in February. Ferrer’s indemnity clause, which ties Wayfarer Studios to covering her legal fees, is described as a lever used to control her response. The dispute over indemnity and the demand that Ferrer surrender control of her response have been a point of contention between the sides, with a settlement reached only recently. Baldoni’s team contends that Ferrer’s opposition is an attack on them unrelated to the court’s needs and asks the judge to prevent the use of Ferrer’s communications in the case. Earlier this year, a motion to keep Lively’s text messages out of discovery was denied, and a later ruling confirmed that texts relevant to It Ends With Us could be examined. The case is scheduled to go to trial in March 2026.

This dispute highlights how high profile film projects can turn casting and contract minutiae into tactical battles. Subpoenas against non-parties raise questions about the line between legitimate discovery and pressure aimed at private individuals. Social media threats connected to the case add a chilling layer that could deter others from speaking up when asked to share private material. The back-and-forth over indemnity obligations shows how production companies and their affiliates can leverage contract terms to influence communication and record-keeping. As the March 2026 trial looms, the case may reveal how far studios will go to assemble a defense while protecting non parties from legal entanglement. The outcome could influence future discovery practices in entertainment disputes and set a benchmark for how non parties are treated in high stakes cases.

Highlights

The case will test how far a studio can push legal leverage without compromising the rights of those not in the courtroom.