With high-profile allegations, hundreds of discovery requests, and a media circus swirling around It Ends With Us, the case of Lively v. Wayfarer just added another layer of drama: a procedural fight about time—how much of it the Wayfarer Parties should get to amend their case and respond to discovery.

The dispute exploded in three competing letters filed between April 9–11, 2025. The Wayfarer Parties (which include Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios) asked the court to push two key deadlines:

1. The April 14 deadline to answer interrogatories
2. The April 18 deadline to amend pleadings or join parties

Their argument? There’s simply too much discovery on their plate—more than 1,600 document requests and 179 interrogatories—and the motions to dismiss aren’t yet decided, making it inefficient to guess what amendments the court might allow.

Lively and Reynolds: “No One Made You Sue Everyone”

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds fired back in a letter dated April 10. Their legal team rejected the Wayfarer Parties’ request in full, accusing them of trying to game the system and delay accountability.

Lively’s team emphasized that:

• The current April 18 deadline was already a negotiated extension past the court’s model rule (30 days post-initial conference).
• The Wayfarer Parties “burned” their one amendment of right early, knowing they would need leave of court for any future changes.
• Rule 16’s “good cause” standard hasn’t been met: the Wayfarer Parties knew about the motions to dismiss timeline since February but waited until April to complain.
• If the court allows amendments after the dismissal ruling, it encourages “wait and see” pleading—a strategy courts routinely reject.

They also addressed the discovery issue head-on, stating that any “burden” of interrogatories was self-inflicted: “Had they not wanted to respond to interrogatories from, say, Mr. Reynolds or Ms. Sloane, they could and should have forgone filing utterly frivolous lawsuits against them.”

If the court does grant an extension, Lively’s team asks for a stay of discovery until Wayfarer files a version of the complaint that survives.

The Sloane Parties: “They Can’t Even Name the Statements They’re Suing Over”

On April 11, Leslie Sloane and Vision PR filed their own opposition letter. Represented by Sigrid McCawley (Boies Schiller Flexner), the Sloane Parties eviscerated Wayfarer’s request with one key point:
If Wayfarer had a real Rule 11 basis for suing them, they should already know what defamatory statements Sloane supposedly made.

Sloane’s interrogatories asked basic questions:

• What were the defamatory statements?
• Who were they shared with?
• What damage did they cause?

Wayfarer couldn’t answer—not because of burden, Sloane argues, but because there’s no evidence at all. Instead of extending time, Sloane’s team demands that Wayfarer finally back up their claims or admit they never had any.

As for amending the complaint, Sloane’s letter was blunt: “Wayfarer hopes something useful will turn up during discovery. Unfortunately for them, discovery will only confirm that their claims are meritless.”

Strategic Stakes

This isn’t just a fight about interrogatories or word counts. It’s a test of litigation posture and leverage. The Lively and Sloane teams are forcing the court to decide:

• Will it allow Wayfarer a second shot to fix a weak complaint after seeing all the defendants’ arguments?
• Will it grant leniency when Wayfarer has aggressively publicized claims but now struggles to support them under oath?

Meanwhile, Wayfarer is betting the court will view procedural flexibility as fair play—particularly when multiple motions to dismiss are still pending.

But if the court agrees with Lively and Sloane, this could mark the beginning of the end for much of the case, especially against peripheral defendants like Sloane.