Blake Lively has secured a modified protective order in her bitter dispute with Justin Baldoni

The decision followed Blake's request for stricter safeguards to prevent private details from being leaked to the media or shared within Hollywood.

Judge Liman acknowledged the risk of sensitive information spreading through the industry, stating: "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."

A spokesperson for Blake said in a statement the court had "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".

They added: "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."

Justin's attorney, Bryan Freedman, issued a statement after the ruling, rejecting Blake's assertions that deeply personal information required additional protection.

He said: "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.

"We remain focused on the necessary communications that will directly contradict Ms Lively's unfounded accusations."

Blake's legal team had requested broad confidentiality measures in her case against Justin, citing the high-profile nature of the lawsuit and the increased risk of leaks.

Her attorneys argued restricting access to certain documents was essential to preventing reputational damage and media scrutiny.

Justin and his team opposed the request, calling it excessive and warning that it could prevent access to critical evidence.

The court ultimately rejected Blake's attempt to impose strict limitations on all materials, instead focusing on specific protections for highly personal information.