Justin Baldoni’s ‘Offensive’ Behavior That Left Blake Lively In ‘Pain’

While the pair have made various allegations against each other in the past few months, insiders recently shared insight into what may have actually sparked their legal battle.

Although Blake Lively’s father has since passed, sources say that talking about her dad is off-limits to anyone but that Justin Baldoni often brought it up and once claimed that he could speak to him.

According to the Daily Mailsources close to the “Gossip Girl” star have revealed Baldoni’s “very offensive” behavior that left her in “physical pain” and seemingly caused their legal battle.

Lively complained in her legal filing that Baldoni, a follower of the Baha’i religion, had repeatedly said that he could talk to her late father Ernie Lively (formerly Ernie Brown before taking his wife’s last name).

An insider told the news outlet that the topic is a very touchy one for the actress and that she can’t stand people talking about him.

“Blake doesn’t like anyone to talk about her dad. She will have found it very offensive for someone outside her circle to bring up his name even,” a source said.

“It’s been a few years since he passed, but he is a very, very touchy subject with her,” the source added.

Lively’s father, an actor himself, died of cardiac complications in 2021 at age 74, after having undergone heart surgery in 2013.

The actress is seemingly so fond of him that she honors his name in her haircare brand Blake Brown.

Ernie’s acting career began in the 1975 TV series “The Waltons,” going on to star in shows like “The West Wing,” “Murder, She Wrote,” and “The X Files.”

In her sexual harassment complaint against Baldoni, Lively stated that Baldoni bringing up her late father in their conversations “disturbed” her “deeply.”

According to the lawsuit, Baldoni claimed to “speak to the dead,” and at several times, he told Lively he had “spoken to her recently deceased father.”

The legal document read, “On one occasion when he claimed to have spoken with Ms. Lively’s dead father (a person whom Mr. Baldoni had never met), Ms. Lively attempted to deflect the comment with humor, telling Mr. Baldoni: ‘let him know he owes me 40 bucks.’ Mr. Baldoni replied, ‘Wait, does he really?'”

It continued, “Ms. Lively was shocked that Mr. Baldoni was pushing the conversation further, and replied with another attempt at humorous deflection, stating, ‘Oh god no. He owes me so much more than that.'”

“Mr. Baldoni then closed his eyes, put his hand on his heart, and said, ‘I was leaving my apartment this morning, and I reached into my pocket… and there was $40 in there, that I did not put there,'” the document stated.

It added, “This exchange deeply disturbed Ms. Lively, and it was not (as Defendants have since claimed) limited to Mr. Baldoni simply claiming to pray for her father.”

Meanwhile, a judge has granted Lively’s protective order request in her legal battle with Baldoni, but the court limited the scope of the restrictions she sought.

Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds asked Judge Lewis Liman to place a protective order before they divulge conversations with “high-profile” people about her time on “It Ends With Us,” as they fear Baldoni could leak them to the press.

According to People MagazineJudge Liman ruled on Thursday that while certain confidential materials will remain protected, an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation can only be applied if their disclosure is “highly likely to cause a significant business, commercial, financial or privacy injury.”

“And where confidential information is not disclosed to the media, it may spread by gossip and innuendo to those in the tight artistic community in a position to do harm to one or the other of the parties but in a manner that might not be readily and immediately detected,” Liman ruled.

Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman responded to judge Liman’s ruling, emphasizing that the actor has never tried to seek the kind of deeply personal information Lively is moving to keep protected.

“We are fully in agreement with the Court’s decision to provide a narrow scope of protections to categories such as private mental health records and personal security measures that have never been of interest to us, as opposed to Ms. Lively’s exceedingly overbroad demand for documents for a 2.5-year period of time, which the court rightly quashed,” he said.

Freedman added, “We remain focused on the necessary communications that will directly contradict Ms. Lively’s unfounded accusations.”

Meanwhile, a source close to Lively said in a statement, “Today, the court rejected the Wayfarer Parties’ objections and entered the protections needed to ensure the free flow of discovery material without any risk of witness intimidation or harm to any individual’s security. With this order in place, Ms. Lively will move forward in the discovery process to obtain even more of the evidence that will prove her claims in court.”