What does Justin Baldoni’s legal victory mean for Blake Lively? Report recommends disclosing ‘more explosive’ information

The ruling in Baldoni’s favor marks significant progress in a complex legal battle over charges related to the 2024 film It all ends with us.

Read more: Ryan’s rep defends him over unsealed text messages from Justin talking about wife Blake

Jones has filed to dismiss the case, according to Baldoni’s attorney Brian Friedman. “The court denies Stephanie Jones’ request to dismiss the case and will allow Wayfarer’s claims, including defamation, to be tested on the full evidentiary record,” he said.

The lawsuit alleges Jones improperly accessed and leaked private text messages, which later led to damaging media coverage that painted Baldoni as a sexual harasser.

Page Six reports that this will bring the case into the age of discovery. The court could review communications involving several high-profile people, including her husband Lively Ryan Reynoldsand Lively’s publicist Leslie Sloan.

Baldoni’s legal team has expressed confidence that a fuller record of evidence will reveal how some of the narrative was “fabricated.”

Read more: All the celebrities named in unsealed court documents in Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni case

According to Baldoni’s team, Jones disparaged him in front of Sloan, Lively and Reynolds and claimed she “maliciously” leaked the text messages that sparked a dizzying array of lawsuits. The text messages eventually appeared in a shocking New York Times article.

Baldoni has denied the accusations and previously filed a countersuit alleging defamation and coordinating a defamation campaign, although parts of that case were dismissed in 2025.

The legal battle has since expanded into multiple lawsuits involving publicists, production teams and media organizations, and unsealed documents and text messages continue to fuel public interest.

According to People magazine, Baldoni’s team accused Lively and her team of legal manipulation, including what they claimed was an overwhelming “document dump” and attempts to control which communications were made public.

Lively’s attorneys disputed the description of a “document dump” in a March 26 filing, calling the request for a deadline extension “an incremental ploy to delay the trial” and arguing that “the defendants’ own delays should not be rewarded.”