Isabela Ferrer, the young actress who portrayed the younger version of Blake Lively’s character Lily Bloom in It Ends With Us, has stepped into the legal crossfire between Lively and the film’s director and co-star, Justin Baldoni. According to a court filing obtained by Rolling Stone, Ferrer claims Baldoni tried to “manipulate, threaten, [and] control” her in connection with the ongoing high-profile legal battle.
The situation escalated in February 2025 when Ferrer received a subpoena from Lively, requiring her to review allegations made by Baldoni that mentioned Ferrer. Ferrer’s legal team described the move as dragging her “into the discovery fray,” despite her efforts to stay out of the litigation. In response, Ferrer requested indemnity for her legal fees, citing the protections in her acting contract, and also sought extensions from Lively to give her enough time to comply while the indemnity issue was sorted out.
What Ferrer alleges next raises eyebrows. According to her lawyers, It Ends, LLC and Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios agreed to cover her legal fees—but only if she surrendered control over her response to Baldoni’s team. “The Baldoni team sought to respond for Ms. Ferrer however they wanted, not actually allowing Ms. Ferrer to provide the documents that reveal the true facts,” the filing stated. In other words, Ferrer’s legal team claims she was essentially being asked to hand over the keys to her own testimony.
Her attorneys have been vocal about what they see as Baldoni’s broader pattern of behavior. They characterize his recent legal maneuvers against Ferrer as attempts to “harass” and “draw her deeper into litigation and disputes that she has done her best to avoid.” In their filing, they further allege that Baldoni’s actions are designed to “manipulate the press” and “create havoc on a young, up-and-coming, and talented actress.” Ferrer is asking the court not only to deny Baldoni’s motion against her but also to consider sanctions for what her legal team calls his “bad faith tactics.”
To fully understand Ferrer’s claims, it’s helpful to look at the larger context of the Lively-Baldoni legal battle. After the release of It Ends With Us in the summer of 2024, Lively filed a complaint against Baldoni alleging sexual harassment on set and a campaign of defamation. Baldoni initially responded with a subpoena against Lively, though his legal team eventually withdrew that request in May 2025. Baldoni later filed a massive countersuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist Leslie Sloane for $400 million—a case that a judge dismissed earlier this year. His lawsuit against The New York Times also did not survive judicial scrutiny.
The Ferrer situation highlights just how messy things have become behind the scenes. While Ferrer’s involvement might have seemed peripheral at first, the subpoena and subsequent legal wrangling pulled her squarely into the middle of the controversy. Her claims suggest that what started as a contract dispute and legal review quickly escalated into allegations of intimidation and manipulation. It’s a cautionary tale about how young actors can sometimes get caught in legal battles far larger than themselves.
Another striking aspect of Ferrer’s filing is her insistence on maintaining agency over her own legal response. She requested extensions and indemnity not to avoid responsibility but to ensure she could participate on her own terms. The conditions allegedly set by Baldoni’s team—to allow them to control her responses—paint a picture of an artist being pressured to let a more powerful figure dictate her legal narrative.
The public has largely been focused on the drama between Lively and Baldoni, but Ferrer’s involvement adds a new dimension to the story. It underscores the ripple effects of high-profile disputes, showing how even supporting actors and young talent can become entangled in litigation that has little to do with their own actions on set. Her lawyers argue that Baldoni’s tactics represent a broader pattern of bullying and harassment toward those who might otherwise steer clear of the conflict.
It’s also notable that both Lively and Baldoni have remained largely silent regarding Ferrer’s claims. Reps for both have not immediately responded to requests for comment, leaving Ferrer’s narrative as the only publicly detailed account of her interactions with Baldoni in this legal context. That silence arguably intensifies the tension, as it leaves Ferrer to navigate the legal process without the kind of public support that could clarify the situation.
Legal experts observing the case have noted that indemnity clauses in acting contracts are designed to protect performers from the very type of financial exposure Ferrer faced. Her request for indemnity aligns with standard industry practices: if an actor is dragged into legal proceedings due to matters beyond their control, the production company typically covers their fees. The alleged conditional agreement by Baldoni’s team, however, seems to conflict with the spirit of these protections, at least according to Ferrer’s filing.
In addition to the indemnity dispute, Ferrer’s lawyers argue that Baldoni’s motions are a deliberate attempt to escalate media attention and complicate matters further. By portraying the legal actions as harassment and media manipulation, Ferrer’s team is framing the director’s behavior not just as contractual disagreements but as part of a pattern of intimidation. This framing also emphasizes the vulnerability of young actors who are still establishing their careers.
For Ferrer, the stakes are clear: she wants to protect her reputation, maintain autonomy over her legal response, and avoid being pulled deeper into litigation that could damage her budding career. The court filing makes a strong appeal for both procedural fairness and accountability, highlighting what her attorneys describe as Baldoni’s ongoing pattern of aggressive legal tactics.
As the case develops, the situation serves as a reminder of how complex legal disputes in Hollywood can become, particularly when they involve multiple layers of personal, professional, and media dynamics. Even actors in supporting roles—like Ferrer—can find themselves caught in high-profile disputes that dominate headlines and demand substantial legal resources.
Ultimately, Ferrer’s filing paints a portrait of a young actress asserting her rights in a high-stakes environment. Her insistence on indemnity and control over her responses underscores both the importance of contractual protections and the challenges performers face when legal battles spiral beyond the immediate parties involved. As the courts weigh her requests against Baldoni’s actions, this case may set a precedent for how supporting actors are treated when swept into celebrity legal conflicts.
Login