Blake Lively Wins Again as Judge Forces Producer to Turn Over Entire Intimate Video Within 3 Days

Blake Lively won another major court victory against It Ends with Us producer Jamey Heath and director Justin Baldoni.

On November 19, Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered Heath to hand over all videos of a disputed childbirth recording. The judge grew impatient after months of missed deadlines and disputes over discovery.

This ruling gives Lively momentum in her $161 million lawsuit, which includes claims of workplace harassment and defamation.

The Mounting Pressure

Tensions escalated between Lively’s lawyers and Heath throughout 2025. Heath initially submitted just a three-minute video clip, claiming he followed court orders.

Lively’s team rejected the partial submission and filed a complaint on November 3, accusing Heath of deliberately hiding evidence. The attorneys demanded a full video production.

Judge Liman’s new order directly addressed these complaints, indicating that he doubted Heath’s story and supported Lively’s legal position.

Background: The Harassment Claim

Blake Lively filed her lawsuit in December 2024, charging that director Justin Baldoni sexually harassed her, created a hostile workplace, and defamed her reputation.

She claims Baldoni acted inappropriately on set, then used social media to attack her after she reported him. Lively seeks $161 million in damages plus punitive costs. The case highlights power imbalances between famous directors and actors, as well as whether studios adequately protect workers from misconduct.

The Birth Video Dispute

At the case’s center sits a video of Natasha Heath, the producer’s wife, giving birth at home.

Lively claims Heath showed her explicit Intimate footage without warning during It Ends with Us filming in 2024.

She initially thought it was pornography. Heath denies this, insisting he only showed a post-birth family video. Judge Liman found the full video “supports Lively’s claim” and declared it crucial evidence for trial.

The Judge’s Order

Judge Lewis J. Liman issued a six-page court order on November 19, forcing Heath to deliver all childbirth videos within three days.

The judge wrote: “The Court ordered more than what Heath claims he showed. Heath should have produced it all.”

Liman decided that Heath had misunderstood the order but hadn’t broken it on purpose. Heath must now pay Lively’s legal fees and keep all materials under seal until trial.

Impact: Evidentiary Advantage

The full video order significantly strengthens Lively’s case for the March 2026 trial. Now her team receives complete footage instead of a three-minute clip, allowing them to analyze exactly what appeared on set.

Expert witnesses can testify about the explicit nature of the video and the inappropriateness of Heath’s conduct.

The judge’s finding helps Lively in settlement talks and jury arguments, significantly boosting her damages claim.

Personal Stakes for Lively

This court win validates Lively’s choice to fight despite harsh public attention and personal stress. She maintains that reporting workplace crimes protects fellow actors and sets professional standards.

Now she controls all the evidence and can build a complete case for the jurors. Judge Liman’s ruling backs her core claims and contradicts Heath’s defense.

As the trial nears, Lively enters the courtroom with additional facts and stronger credibility to support her $161 million demand.

Pattern of Judicial Skepticism

Judge Liman’s November 19 order shows a clear pattern of doubt toward the defense throughout 2025. In June, Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit against Lively for lack of legal merit.

In August, he protected Lively’s deposition transcript and scolded Baldoni’s team for creating a “media circus.”

On November 3, he formally closed Baldoni’s case after the defendant failed to meet filing deadlines. This pattern signals the judge sees merit in Lively’s harassment claims.

Discovery Failures Mount

The repeated discovery battles reveal a defense pattern of incomplete and delayed responses. Heath’s September 2 deadline passed without full video delivery—he sent just three minutes.

Lively’s team objected and sought punishment on November 3. Heath offered no good explanation. Judge Liman’s order suggests the judge views these delays as a strategy, not an accident.

This pattern erodes judicial trust in the defense’s honesty and may hurt their credibility at trial.

Attorneys’ Fees

Judge Liman ordered Heath to pay Lively’s legal costs for this motion. Though small compared to the $161 million claim, this carries symbolic weight.

It shows the judge disapproves of Heath’s behavior and penalizes discovery violations. Courts typically award attorney fees only when parties act in bad faith or force unnecessary litigation.

This ruling reinforces that Heath didn’t innocently misunderstand orders—he failed to obey clear judicial commands.

Baldoni’s Escalating Legal Defeats

Baldoni suffered multiple courtroom losses that weakened his position against Lively. Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit in June 2025, eliminating a major threat to Lively.

The judge found Baldoni’s defamation claims lacked legal foundation. Courts also rejected Baldoni’s attempt to question Taylor Swift as a witness.

These accumulated defeats push Baldoni’s legal team into a purely defensive mode, stripping them of settlement leverage.

The Defense’s Crumbling Strategy

The defense’s litigation tactics backfired repeatedly as judges rejected key moves. Courts rebuked attempts to publicize the case through media statements.

Liman sternly warned against creating a “media circus” around discovery disputes. Judges overruled efforts to limit Lively’s evidence through narrow responses.

Courts dismissed counterclaims and scope-expansion attempts. This pattern suggests desperation rather than confidence.

As the March 2026 trial approaches, the defense enters court severely weakened by procedural losses and eroded judicial credibility.

Sealed Evidence and Protective Orders

The video remains sealed under a protective order until trial. It won’t reach the public until it is introduced in court.

Protective orders stop prejudicial pretrial publicity, shield sensitive information, and protect jury integrity. Judge Liman sealed the birth video due to its explicit nature and risk to Natasha Heath’s privacy.

The public won’t see it unless the trial proceeds. However, expert witnesses can view and analyze the footage, and their courtroom testimony will influence the jury’s opinion about both parties’ accounts.

Settlement Pressure Intensifies

The November 19 order significantly alters the settlement dynamics entering 2026. Lively now controls complete evidence proving her core claims.

The defense faces mounting procedural losses and shattered judicial credibility. From a risk standpoint, Baldoni and Heath face a trial where the judge already doubts them, key evidence favors Lively, and multiple witnesses will testify against them.

Settlement talks typically accelerate when one side faces severe disadvantages—trial costs may exceed settlement costs significantly.

Trial Timeline and Next Steps

The lawsuit is set to head to trial in March 2026, approximately four months after Judge Liman’s ruling on November 19.

Before then, both sides exchange expert reports, negotiate settlements, prepare trial materials, and handle remaining discovery. Heath must deliver the complete video to Lively by November 22, 2025. Additional pretrial conferences will address remaining disputes.

For Lively, these months allowed her to strengthen her case with fresh evidence while maintaining public attention on her harassment and defamation claims.

Emerging Industry Investigations

The Lively-Baldoni case triggered industry-wide reviews of film set conduct and harassment prevention. Multiple studios launched safety reviews, and industry groups developed new on-set conduct guidelines and reporting channels.

Entertainment unions demanded mandatory harassment training and independent third-party reporting systems. California lawmakers considered tougher penalties for workplace retaliation in the entertainment industry.

This case may spark industry-wide policy reforms extending far beyond Lively’s personal lawsuit against Baldoni and Heath.

Ripple Effects Across Entertainment

The ruling shapes how courts handle discovery disputes in high-profile entertainment litigation. Other harassment plaintiffs may cite Judge Liman’s order when demanding complete evidence instead of partial submissions.

Studios reassess discovery practices and train lawyers on stricter evidence-sharing expectations. Insurance companies review policy exclusions for misconduct, which may result in higher premiums for companies facing substantiated allegations of harassment.

This case influences the entire entertainment industry’s approach to litigation risk, evidence handling, and workplace safety.

Public Perception and Misinformation

Social media split public opinion, with some calling Lively a courageous whistleblower and others questioning her account or distrusting massive damage claims.

False claims spread online—that the judge ruled for Lively on everything, or that the video leaked. Expert fact-checkers distinguish between pretrial procedural orders and final judgments.

They clarify that discovery rulings reflect evidence relevance, not verdicts on harassment.

The case illustrates how social media disseminates misinformation more quickly than outlets can correct it during litigation.

Industry Power Dynamics

The Lively-Baldoni dispute echoes past entertainment misconduct scandals involving Harvey Weinstein and Les Moonves that sparked the #MeToo movement.

However, Lively achieved something novel—she used courts to compel evidence production rather than relying solely on public outcry or journalism.

Her legal victory proves that courts enforce discovery obligations and protect the evidence of harassment plaintiffs.

Unlike older cases, this one involves rigorous judicial scrutiny of on-set conduct and tech-mediated evidence, signaling that courts now treat entertainment workplace disputes seriously.

The Bottom Line

Blake Lively’s November 19 court win significantly strengthens her position before the March 2026 trial of her $161 million harassment and defamation lawsuit.

Judge Liman’s order, which forces Heath to deliver all videos within three days, combined with prior rulings dismissing Baldoni’s countersuit, protecting her deposition, and penalizing defense conduct, demonstrates clear judicial backing for her core claims.

For entertainment, the ruling demonstrates that courts enforce discovery rules, protect claimants from harassment, and penalize incomplete submissions.

Lively’s victory demonstrates that courts and the legal process hold powerful industry figures accountable alongside public pressure.