Baldoni and Lively's lawyers crossed each other during the Judicial Court on Mondays with Judge Lewis Liman, he threatened to move the trial away.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldons were locked in the bitter legal battle since the actress accused Baldonija sexual harassment, she encouraged the center of 400 million dollars from the actor.

The judge presides by the legal battle between the lively and hers, "Co-Star, Justin Baldoni, denied her request for setting the beam on Baldoni's lawyers.

The lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds asked the court to prevent a trademark for the prevention of Baldoni's lawyer, Bryana Freedman, from the inclusion of "irregular behavior", including going to the alleged "mistreating and retarding media campaign" against them.

In his request, they claimed that Freedman "violated the judicial rules that stop the lawyer to present statements to the press that is irrelevant to the case and can prejudice the jury."

However, Judge Liman denied a request for a couple and instead he said that he would adopt the rule for lawyers known as Rule 3.6, which bars of both parties may affect external statements that may affect extracurrent statements.

"My expectations are parties in accordance with his ethical obligations. I do not expect this case to roll over in a satellite litigation over the lawyer's comments," Liman said, said Liman, Po Daily mail. "They both said a lot in the statements that give the public a lot of feasts."

It was a heated affair for the dominance such as Freedman and Gotlieb continued to take each other.

Gotlieb criticized freedoms out of court comments, claiming that they attacked the living "character, integrity and truthfulness."

However, Freedman told him that they "began" with New York Times Article.

Following the Liman judge to adopt Rule 3.6, Freedman tried to spend, saying, "Not to sound like a four-year-old fight with a four-year-old", but once someone says the fact, there is no way to fight it. "

"You begin to lose things without the ability to have a court judgment. That didn't start," Freedman added.

In the court session, Lively's lawyer said he would seek a protective order for future submissions for the protection of fame friends.

Although no name was mentioned, Baldoni previously cited Taylor Swift in 400m dollar claims against the Star "Green Girl," accusing that he was trying to use his fame.

"We believe that there will be provisions in the protective order that will be appropriate in this case, given the nature of the allegations and the high nature of some individuals who will be involved," Gottlieb said.

"There is a significant number of highly profiled individuals on both sides," he added. "Specifically, addressing interest and third party needs will be very important in this case."

Gottlieb noted to plan to "seek protection that we believe will be very important, especially in the case of a significant amount of material leakage", propose a protective order.

The judge agreed with him and said that he were also called the other parties ", you already have a lot of high-high profile." Baldoni's lawyer also stated that he would be ready to agree to the order.

Meanwhile, Baldoni's team pleaded with the judge to move the case forward as he discovered that his clients "suffered greatly".

"We would really invite the court to allow the discovery to take place and move forward, because the damage has suffered and suffered since they pulled out the article New York Times," he said on the topic.

He found that the Baldoni's production company lost "hundreds of millions of dollars" from the beginning of the legal war, and Melissa Nathan, Baldonijev, also suffered the loss of clients.

"When things hit the press, especially in New York Times, people sometimes react before there is a court resolution. Those parties are largely," he explained. "It is so important from the perspective of our client that it will be a future life life to move forward as fast as possible."

Tensions between warring parties can seemingly enriched as Judge Liman warned that he could move the date of the trial from March next year if they do not behave.

He said, "I won't do it, I'm sure the parties need time to discovery."

"But if it turns out to complete the prompt litigation in a way that would prejudice the opportunity of the honest trial ... one of the tools that the Court has to accelerate the trial date."

"It's something that's out. I don't want to do that," Judge Liman warned.