Blake Lively Ordered to Produce ‘Missing’ Audio Evidence After Judge Calls Out Filing Discrepancy

In a stunning development that has introduced serious questions about the integrity of her legal strategy, actress Blake Lively has been formally directed by the court to immediately produce a critical piece of audio evidence—one that her legal filings have repeatedly cited as proof of her claims against the opposing side.

This controversy erupted after Judge Lewis J. Liman unsealed key exhibits in the ongoing legal dispute involving Lively and Wayfarer Studios executive, Steve Sarowitz. What should have been a public viewing of the evidence has instead exposed a major flaw: the centerpiece of Lively’s claims, an audio recording, was never actually submitted to the court.

The new order from Judge Liman forces Lively’s team to not only hand over the audio but also provide a public means for its release by a fast-approaching Friday deadline, creating an unprecedented moment of pressure for the A-list plaintiff.

The Audio Recording at the Heart of the Dispute

The audio recording in question is a key component of Lively’s motion for fees and damages. The actress’s filings have repeatedly cited an alleged conversation where Sarowitz purportedly threatened to spend “$100 million to destroy her and defend Wayfarer against her,” even making a chilling comparison to the conflict between Israel and Hamas with “dead people on the floor.”

The declaration submitted by a third party, Claire Aub, claims she made the recording during a conversation with Sarowitz. Aub stated she recorded the call because she feared Sarowitz would pressure her over her decision to exclude Justin Baldoni from the promotion of her film, Empire Waste.

Lively’s legal team submitted a declaration by Aub, swearing that a “true and correct copy of this audio recording” was being provided through discovery. The public filings show a placeholder page for the exhibit, but when reporters and the public sought to access the unsealed evidence, the audio file was nowhere to be found. The federal e-filing system simply stated the electronic audio recording was “filed under seal.”

The Judge’s Blunt Order: “We Can’t Upload What We Do Not Have”

Inquiries from the media forced the court to address the discrepancy. The court’s response revealed the startling truth: the federal e-filing system does not support audio or video files directly. The standard procedure requires parties to either provide a secure digital link to the file or physically deliver a thumb drive or CD to the judge’s chambers.

Lively’s team, however, did neither. They filed a motion, swore that the recording was attached, and filed a digital placeholder page—but the audio file itself never reached the court’s possession.

Judge Liman, in his ruling, effectively called out the error, stating the court “has been informed that the exhibits cannot be filed on the public docket as the electronic case filing system does not support audio files. The court therefore requests the party’s assistance in publicly releasing the file.”

Sources inside the court confirmed the reality: the audio could not be released because they never received it at all. The judge is telling Lively, in no uncertain terms: you told me you filed this, now actually deliver it and tell me how the public can hear it.

Credibility Crisis: Deliberate Deception or Technical Blunder?

This oversight, whether a colossal technical blunder or a deliberate manipulation, creates a massive credibility issue for Blake Lively’s entire motion. The filing explicitly stated the audio was submitted as an exhibit—a definitive claim, not a promise to provide it later.

If it was an honest mistake: Lively’s team made a major procedural error, embarrassing themselves and risking damage to her motion, which relies heavily on this evidence. The judge, by giving them an opportunity to file a joint letter explaining how to proceed, is providing a narrow way out.

If it was a deliberate strategy: The implications are far more damaging. By referencing the terrifying quotes and saying they have the audio “receipts” without actually handing over the file, Lively’s team could have been attempting to control the narrative. They could describe the recording however they wanted—confident that neither the defense, nor the judge, nor the public could check the contents. This would be a manipulative attempt to shape public and judicial perception without the risk of cross-examination.

The legal jeopardy is real. A missing exhibit makes a sworn declaration incomplete and potentially misleading. If lawyers submit filings that misstate what’s attached, the judge has the power to impose sanctions for violating Rule 11, which prohibits false or careless statements to the court.

Blake Lively fought tooth and nail to keep this recording confidential. Now that it is ordered unsealed and its existence is publicly questioned, she faces a dilemma: comply and produce the audio, or withdraw her entire motion. If the audio finally emerges and its context is different than what her lawyers depicted, the backlash for attempting to manipulate the record will be catastrophic, proving that the legal chessboard is not always tilted in a Hollywood star’s favor.