The latest development in the protracted litigation between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni/Wayfarer Studios centers on the disclosure of a critical audio recording that Lively’s legal team had withheld from the public and even the presiding Judge.

This audio, reportedly recorded by Claire Aub (a director/writer of a Wayfarer-produced film) without the consent of Mr. Steve Sarowitz, is allegedly used by Lively to prove a “$100 million conspiracy to destroy her.”

The Problem of “Physical Evidence” and Initial Omissions

The issue began when the Judge noticed that while the recording was referenced in Lively’s court filings (in support of a motion for fees and damages), the Judge and the Court had never actually received a physical copy of the audio.

The Court Order: On October 15, 2025, the Judge issued an order demanding that the parties inform the court of their plan to publicly release the audio file that had previously been ordered unsealed.
An Unusual Agreement: In response, counsel for Lively and the other parties agreed to provide the Clerk’s Office with a physical audio recording in CD format. The Clerk would then copy and distribute the replica to the public upon request.

Legal commentators found this approach highly unusual:

Initial Omission: Why did Lively’s team not provide a copy to the Court immediately when they filed the motion seeking fees and damages based on its content?
Reviewing Evidence: How was the Judge expected to review the substance of the motion without a physical copy of the recording?

Legal Hurdles: Authentication and Admissibility

The public distribution via CD does not resolve the bigger legal questions about whether the recording can be used at trial:

Authentication: To be admitted as evidence in Federal Court, the audio must be authenticated (verified for accuracy, absence of doctoring, and a clear chain of custody).

The recorder (Claire Aub) has not detailed the means she used to record the audio (phone, tape recorder, Zoom call…), which complicates the authentication process.

Admissibility: The recording is currently only an “exhibit” supporting a motion, not accepted “evidence” for the trial. The Court will have to determine:

Its relevance to the case.
Whether it was legally obtained.
Whether it was tampered with.
The fact that Baldoni/Wayfarer is not fighting the release may imply they concede its authenticity, but it does not guarantee its admissibility at trial.

The Inconvenient Release and PR Scrutiny

The Judge has given Lively’s team a deadline of Monday, October 20, 2025, to provide the physical CD copy to the Court.

Inaccessibility: The use of a physical CD significantly reduces public accessibility. Those who wish to hear it must physically travel to the courthouse, pay a fee for the copy, and own a CD player.
PR Maneuver: Many speculate that Lively’s team chose the “physical CD” method to limit access and shift the responsibility of distribution (and the potential legal risks associated with a secret recording) away from themselves and onto the Court. Had they released the electronic file themselves, they could potentially face legal scrutiny over the legality of the recording.

Many question whether Lively’s team ever truly intended for the recording to be serious legal evidence or if the motion was simply a PR stunt to create public pressure, as withholding the evidence initially contradicts standard legal practice. The audio is expected to be uploaded online shortly after someone retrieves a copy from the Clerk’s office on Monday.