A federal judge has shut down parts of Blake Livelys subpoena for phone records while allowing a portion of it to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman on Friday found that the subpoena is overly intrusive because it could contain information relating to associates of Justin Baldonis team, as well as sensitive medical information, in a way that violates their privacy. Under the ruling, Lively will be able to make discovery requests solely tailored to certain individuals shes already identified as allegedly participating in the smear campaign against her. Even assuming additional individuals participated in the alleged campaign, the hope that discovery will turn up information on such participants does not justify the broad scope of the Subpoenas, the order stated.

A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni, after he was issued the subpoena, ran into court to keep secret certain phone records. The judge has ruled that if we simply submit more specific requests, we will be able to get the records we are seeking, the statement added. Today we will do that. We are submitting those requests directly to the defendants involved and we look forward to seeing the records.

Bryan Freedman, a lawyer for Baldoni, said the court put a stop to Ms. Livelys egregious attempt to invade our clients privacy. He added, No matter how the Lively Parties may try to spin this decision, the Court saw their efforts for what they really are: a desperate fishing expedition intended to salvage their debunked claims long after they already savaged our clients reputations in the New York Times.

Earlier this month, Lively issued subpoenas, which are under seal, for information on ingoing and outgoing calls or text messages related to phone numbers belonging to certain individuals ensnared in the litigation dating back to 2022. Baldonis team challenged the request, taking issue with the actress seeking the phone numbers for anyone with whom it communicated, regardless of whether it was related to the case. It moved to limit the information it must turn over to communications between the subpoenaed phone numbers and other specific phone numbers of parties and witnesses that would be provided by Lively, who said that shes looking for evidence regarding the larger network of individuals who perpetuated the alleged smear campaign against her.

In Fridays ruling, Liman found that Lively hasnt provided a basis to believe that the discovery she seeks will uncover information regarding unidentified participants in the alleged scheme.

This negative campaign did not begin until approximately August 2024, the judge wrote. It is therefore unclear how communications to and from Wayfarer Parties in 2022 and 2023 would reveal individuals who participated in the campaign.

The court stressed that Lively has already identified several individuals in her complaint. This includes Jed Wallace of Street Relations, whos accused by Lively of creating artificial content on social media platforms that appeared to attack her and defend Baldoni.

Lively may make discovery requests tailored to those individuals, the order stated. She is permitted to use the tools of discovery to identify the contact information or telephone numbers for those individuals.

More than two months after the filing of the criss-crossing lawsuits, the two sides have refused to engage in settlement discussions, according to court filings.

Read Livelys full statement below:

What is Bryan Freedman hiding? After promising to release all the receipts, Freedman ran into court to keep secret the phone records of who Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Nathan, Wallace andAbelwere calling during their retaliatory campaign.So, instead of getting these records from the phone carriersthe waywe initially requested, the judge has ruled thatif we simply submit more specific requests, we will be able to get the records we are seeking. Today we will do that, we aresubmitting those requests directly to defendants involved and we look forward to seeing therecords.

Read Freedmans full statement below:

The Court put a stop to Ms. Livelys egregious attempt to invade our clients privacy. This is a big win. No matter how the Lively Parties may try to spin this decision, the Court saw their efforts for what they really are: a desperate fishing expedition intended to salvage their debunked claims long after they already savaged our clients reputations in the New York Times.